BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 399 of 2010

Date of Institution :  30.06.2010

Date of  Decision   :  05.03.2012

Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh, through its Registrar.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1] EM PEE Motors Ltd., Pioneer Toyota, 177/1, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

[2] Toyota Kirloskar Motor, 24, Vithal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Sandeep Chopra, Law Officer of Complainant

          Sh.S.R.Bansal, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

PER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER 

          In nutshell, the case of the Complainant was that a Toyota Corolla Altis car was purchased by it on 25.9.2009 for Rs.11,24,798/- from OP No.1. The said car started giving noise at the rear side near window pains. The said defect was pointed out to the OPs vide letters dated 20.11.2009, 10.12.2009, 30.12.2009 & 1.2.2010 (C-1 to C-7), but the problem/defect was not removed. 

2]       It is averred that the OPs with a view to cover failure on their part, sent letter dated 29.3.2010 (Ann.C-8) to the S.O. of the complainant stating that the fitment of non-genuine window curtains on the rear doors was the reason for noise defect, whereas the noise problem started almost from the date of purchase of the car and this was informed to the OPs vide letter dated 1.4.2010 (Ann.C-9 & C-10), but even then no steps were taken by the OPs to remove the defect in the car, though the car was kept in the garage of OP-1 from 21.11.2009 to 23.11.2009 and from 17.12.2009 to 21.12.2009.  Therefore, this complaint has been filed alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3]       OPs have filed their written statement, interalia, pleading that the car was received on 17.12.2009 for rear side noise check and the same was properly attended to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter, the car had met with an accident on 16.3.2010, as such received for accidental repair, which too was properly attended by taking insurance claim from ICICI Lombard Insurance Company.  The car was lastly received on 23.9.2010 for shock absorber inspection and found rear bumper loose and lock adjustment while covering Kms 22368 and delivered the vehicle thereafter, leaving no other complaint. It is stated that there was no noise problem in the car in question, as alleged by the Complainant, but it was only because of normal wear & tear as well as due to non-adjustment of wiring of curtains, which were got fitted by the Complainant themselves. It was asserted that the car was properly attended as and when it was received for any normal job and the noise problem might have occurred due to accident suffered by the car in question. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]       It is the case of the complainant that the noise problem subsisted and continued even after the vehicle in dispute was kept in the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 twice, that also within a span of less than one month’s period i.e. from 21.11.2009 to 23.11.2009 and 17.12.2009 to 21.12.2009, respectively. 

7]       The main grouse of the complainant is that the car started giving noise problem, at the rear side near windowpanes, just from the day of its purchase.  The said matter/problem was immediately brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 as well as Toyota Liaison Offices at New Delhi and Banglore. 

8]       The complainant further pleaded the glaring deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, which is proved from the response of Opposite Party No.2, when it finally replied on 29.3.2010 to the S.O. of the complainant, that the fitment of non-genuine window curtains on the rear doors was the reason for noise defect.  But, the OPs did not take any steps and have miserably failed to remove the noise defect in the car, till date.

9]       Whereas the OPs, in their written reply, while admitting the noise problem in the said vehicle, stated that the problem had occurred due to normal wear & tear and called it simple and petty problem.  The OPs pleaded that the vehicle in dispute was properly attended to and screws were tightened wherever found loose.

10]      Furthermore, they supported their case by placing on record the Inspection Report as well as affidavit of Sh.Surinder Saini, Sr.Works Manager along with Job Cards (Ann.R-1 to R-7). The OPs further contended that the complainant has no case in his favour, as the onus to prove his case was also upon him.  Moreover, the complainant could neither prove any manufacturing defect nor such defect was ever pointed out, in any of the job cards.

11]      The Inspection Report placed on record by the OPs, dated 22.7.2011, is prepared as well as supported by affidavit of Sh.Surinder Saini, Sr.Works Manager, M/s Em Pee Motors.  The same is reproduced as under, :-

“1. That as per direction of this Hon’ble Forum, the car in question bearing Regd. No.CH-01-G1-0323 was received on 16.7.2011 for inspection……………..the car was properly checked, as desired by occupant of the car in question i.e. rear noise, back view mirror, loosen check, RR seat lower side, seat lock check and all minor jobs were properly attended to the entire satisfaction of the occupant of the car and delivered the same on 19.7.2011 and the Speedo Meter reading was 38884.  The rear noise of the car was also checked and due to minor loose of screws and other fitment etc. the same was tightened and re-fixed and also removing the noise problem which had occurred due to normal wear & wear which generally happens and rear drum brake was also attended and rear seat cushion, lock fix, inner mirror, lock adjustment and itching work also gone done to the entire satisfaction of the occupant of the car in question.

         2   ……….

3.  That I, Surinder Saini, Sr.Works Manager of M/s Em Pee Motors, Toyota Dealer, Industrial area, Phase-I had inspected the car in question personally and get the minor jobs done under my command with the technicians of the dealer company and no other defect was told nor noticed by the occupant of the car………….”

12]      The complainant has also placed on record the Inspection Report prepared by Sh.Amrinder Pal Singh, M.Tech, Assistant Professor, University Institute of Engineering & Technology (UIET), Panjab University, along with his affidavit as well as other document annexed therewith, by the complainant, as Annexure R-1 to R-8.  This inspection report reads as under:-

“1. That as allowed by this Hon’ble Forum, the noise level inside the vehicle in question Toyota Altis Car bearing Registration No.CH-01-G-0323 was tested by me on 26.12.2011 at different speeds with the help handheld Advanced Sound Level Meter manufactured by reputed manufacturer Bruel and Kjaer of Denmark.

2.  That as per Annexure-R-1, at 40 kms. per hour, the noise level below 100 hz strength of noise is close to 100 dB.

3.  That as per Annexure-R-2, at 40 kms. per hour, the noise level below 100 hz strength of noise is above 100 dB and it goes upto 109.3 dB.

4.  That as per Annexure-R-3, at 40 kms. per hour, the noise level below 100 hz strength of noise is close to 100 dB and it goes upto 110 dB.

5.  That as per Annexure-R-4, at 40 Kms. per hour, the noise level below 100 hz strength of noise is above 100 dB and it goes upto 112.5 dB.

6.  That as per Annexure-R-5, at 80 kms. per hour, the noise level below 100 hz strength of noise is well above 90 dB and it goes upto 100.9 dB.

7.  That as per Annexure-R-6, at 80 kms. per hour, the noise level below 100 hz strength of noise is close to 100 dB and it goes upto 101.8 dB.

8.  That as per Annexure-R-7, at 80 kms. per hour, the noise level below 100 hz strength of noise is close to 90 dB and it goes upto 98.4 dB.

9.  That as per Annexure-R-8, the Central Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests Notification No.GSR 849(E) dated 30.12.2002 published in the Gazette of India Part-II, Section-3-Sub Section(i) prescribes that the noise level of all passenger vehicle should not exceed beyond 75 dB(A) at manufacturing state.

10. That the noise level of the vehicle in question is alarmingly high (touching above 100 dB(A)).  Therefore, the manufacturing defect in the vehicle cannot be rules out.

11. That sustained noise level above 90-95 dB(A) can result in hearing loss.”  

13]      After considering all the relevant documents, especially the Inspection Reports, placed on file by both the parties, it has been made out, after in-depth perusal of these reports as well as Notification No.GSR 849(E) dated 30.12.2002, issued by the Central Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, published in the Gazette of India Part-II, Section-3-Sub Section(i) (Ann.R-8), that the vehicle in question was giving considerable noise, which is not permissible even under law.  Sr.No.1(3) of said notification (Ann.R-8), clearly proves this fact and the same is reproduced as under:-

(1) Noise Limits for vehicle application at manufacturing stage from the year 2003.

14]      The Inspection Report filed by the complainant, prepared by Sh.Amrinder Pal Singh, M.Tech, Assistant Professor, University Institute of Engineering & Technology (UIET), Panjab University, who is well qualified and experienced person as well as other documents annexed therewith as Ann.R-1 to R-8, is more explicit, detailed, weighty, genuine and believable, in comparison to the Inspection Report of OPs.  Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the reports, referred to above, placed on record by the complainant. In view of this, it is held that the vehicle in question is suffering from noise problem, which has to be rectified by the OPs.

15]      Even the OPs have not denied the fact that the car in question is giving noise at the rear side near windowpanes just from the day of its purchase.  It is also admitted that the vehicle remained in the workshop of OPs twice before filing of this complaint i.e. from 21.11.2009 to 23.11.2009, 17.12.2009 t0 21.12.2009 and third time during the pendency of this complaint from 16.7.2011 to 19.7.2011. But despite all this the noise problem in the vehicle persisted. In our opinion, the complainant is well within its right to get his vehicle defect free from the OPs. 

16]      However, the complainant has not been able to prove the defect/problem in question to be a manufacturing defect, by leading any cogent & plausible evidence.  Hence, it cannot be said that the car is suffering from any manufacturing defect and that the defect, as pointed out by the complainant, cannot be removed by carrying out necessary repairs. Therefore, there is no plausible justification for replacement of the car or refund of its sale price, as prayed for by the complainant.  

17]      In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, is writ large, on account of non-rectification of defect in the car, as pointed out from time to time by the complainant, inspite of several attempts. Therefore, the present complaint, having lot of merit, weight and substance, must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed to permanently rectify/remove/fix the noise in the car, to the entire/full satisfaction of the complainant as well as bring it to the permissible limit of 75 dB(A) as prescribed/notified by the government vide notification Ann.R-8 for Passenger Car, referred to above and it should be done totally free of cost, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of the vehicle in workshop of OPs, failing which they shall be liable to pay Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation for the harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant, due to the deficient act & conduct of the OPs.

        Apart from the relief, the OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.