DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 203
Instituted on: 13.05.2019
Decided on: 12.12.2023
Sushma Rani aged about 51 years wife of Sh. Suresh Kumar r/o # 73 Khai Basti Ward No.2, Lehragaga, District Sangrur (PB).
Versus
…. Complainant.
- Globe Automobiles (P) Limited V/o Bhindra Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Director.
- Toyota Kirloskar Motors ( P) Limited Plot 1 Bidadi Industrial Area Bidadi Ramnagar District Pin 582109 Karnataka India through its Director.
….Opposite parties.
QUORUM
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT
SARITA GARG : MEMEBR
KANWALJEET SINGH : MEMBER
For the complainant : Shri Ritesh Garg, Adv.
For the OP no.1 : Shri Sansar Singh, Adv.
For the OP no.2 ; Shri M.S.Sethi, Adv.
ORDER
KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
1. The complainant has alleged in this complaint that the complainant has purchased a ETIOS 3WGXD DIESEL L.M.V car on 31.05.2017 of Rs.905000/- vide registration no. PB-13 AX 6985 from OP no.1. The complainant has been given the warranty of three years of the above said car or One lac Kms. whichever is earlier. The OP no.1 has assured the replacement of engine oil after 20000 kms. The car purchased by complainant having manufacturing defect and the complainant has to change the engine oil. On 20.11.2018, OP no.1 changed the pump ASSY VACCUM free of cost and assured that no problem will be occurred in future. When OP no.1 failed to remove the manufacturing defect then recommended to the complainant by written letter dated 01.02.2019 to replace the engine oil after every 5000 kms. which is not bonafide, legal and genuine. The complainant checked her car on 20.04.2019 at Rupal Moror Garage Sunam Road Opposite Polo Technical College Lehragaga District Sangrur. It was found that engine of the car in question has manufacturing defect therefore engine oil is required to be changed approximately after every 3500 kms and the defect in the engine is not
removable. The complainant sent a legal notice on 01.04.2019 but the Ops did not give any reply to the said notice. As such, Ops may kindly be directed to refund the price of the car i.e. Rs.905000/- alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 31.05.2017 till date of payment or replace the car with new one of same model alongwith extended warranty and to pay Rs.75000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony harassment caused to the complainant by Ops and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version separately. Reply of OP no.1 taking preliminary objections that the OP no.1 deals in sales and OPno.2 manufactured the car in question. No cause of action is ever arose in favour of the complainant. The complaint is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, OP no.1 has always provided best services as per the guidelines. The complainant approached the OP no.1 for the scheduled service or accidental repair. It is a matter of record that the complainant has never raised any objection regarding engine oil consumption in the vehicle in question for about one year from the sale and the vehicle had clocked about more than 70000 kms. On 3.10.2018 the vehicle brought to the dealership of OP no.1 for 70,000 kms. service alongwith request for wheel balancing, wheel alignment, tyre rotation etc. At that time the vehicle had clocked at 72466 kms. The complainant was apprised by the dealership of OP no.1 that had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question or any engine oil consumption then the vehicle in question could not have covered 72466 kms. On 25.10.2018 for getting the engine oil checked as per the last service comments the vehicle had clocked 76737 kms. The engine oil was found Ok. As per the guidelines issued by OP no.2 the requisite top up engine oil was done. On 29.10.2018 the vehicle was reported to OP no.1 concerned with “ Radiator Fan Vibrate” . The vehicle had clocked 77391 kms. At that time the complainant did not raise any concern of engine oil consumption. After that vehicle reported to OP no.1 for 80000 kms. service on 16.11.2018 and getting engine oil checked and advised to the complainant to get the engine oil checked after every 5000 kms. In compliance of advice as given during last service, the vehicle was reported to OP no.1 on 20.11.2018 for getting the new vacuum pump fitted in the vehicle. The vehicle in question had clocked 81221 kms and at the time the complainant did not raise any concern about engine oil. The vacuum pump was replaced with new one under warranty. On 13.12.2018 the engine oil consumption in the vehicle in question was checked by Manoj Kumar Group Technical leader of OP no.1. The engine oil level of the vehicle was checked clocked 86178 kms and the same was found OK. It is evident that the vehicle in question does not suffer any sort of manufacturing defect as alleged and it is in road worthy condition. “ Had there been any sort of manufacturing defect then the vehicle could not have covered about One Lac Kms. The alleged report dated 20.04.2019 placed on record by the complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The complainant never disclosed to the Ops that he used to get the vehicle in question checked from outside private garage. Had there been any engine oil issue on 20.04.2019 as mentioned in the alleged checking report then the complainant must have brought to the notice of OP no.1 on 18.04.2019 when the vehicle was reported to the Op.No.1 for minor concern. The engine oil of the vehicle in question is replaced after every 10,000 kms or one year whichever is earlier as per the guidelines issued by OP no.2. However, in the owner’s manual it is already mentioned that the engine oil consumption in any vehicle depends upon the usage conditions like frequent braking and long engine idling or when some times the engine is new one than in that cases the same may lead to high engine oil consumption. In such cases as per the guidelines issued by the OP no.2 the top up of engine oil after every 5000 kms is recommended. The vehicle in question was reported to the dealership of OP no.1 for 80000 kms service on 16.11.2018 and getting engine oil checked as per aforesaid advice dated 3.10.2018 given by the OP no.1 engine oil checked after every 5000 kms. At that point of time the vehicle in question had clocked 81221 kms. It is specifically denied that the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect. As per the desire of the complainant and the technical bulletins issued by the OP no.2 the vacuum pump of the vehicle was replaced under warranty on free of cost basis and thereafter till date no such problem has been observed. It is specifically denied that the engine oil of the vehicle is required to be changed after every 3500 kms. In the letter dated 1.2.2019 it is specifically mentioned that the vehicle in question has been thoroughly checked and no manufacturing defect was found and lastly prayed that the complaint is incorrect and denied therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief, as prayed.
3. In reply of OP no.2 taking preliminary submissions that the OP no.2 is one of the leading and prominent manufacturer of the cars in the automobile industry, which is known for it quality and reliability. The relationship between the OP no.2 and OP no.1 is on principal to principal basis. Dealers purchased vehicles and parts from OP no.2 on payment of full price and they sell the same to their end customers. The OP no.2 is not responsible for the acts and omissions of OP no.1 ,if any. At the outset, the OP no.2 denied all the allegations leveled in the complaint except those, which are specifically admitted herein after in the reply. The complainant has made baseless allegations of defects without specific nature and without relying upon without any evidence. The report Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16 affidavit are procured documents and same are prepared by unqualified persons. Quality of engine oil is nowhere disclosed. There is contradiction in the said report. There is no evidence that consuming less or more engine oil is amounts to manufacturing defect. How much engine oil was found, there is no disclosure in his report that he is also silent of use of the engine oil in the car by the complainant. The vehicle was inspected by the OP no.1 on 24.05.2019 and meter reading was noted 98200 kms where it checked on the engine parameter which will impact on EOC is found to be Ok. His report is also lacking of the uses of the car as well as loading capacity and uses of applying breaks, condition of roads, tyre pressure, wheel alignments etc. increasing/ reducing speed regularly, rush driving etc. which are main factor which increased or decreased the life of the engine oil and without testing of used engine oil its quality, quantity of oil at the time of checking the car the said report is not genuine and so called report obtained without permission of the Forum cannot be relied upon. The vehicle purchased on 31.05.2017 but thereafter said vehicle was never brought to OP no.1. Even free three services at 1000 Kms or one month, second at 10,000 kms or twelve months and third at 20,000 kms or twenty four months whichever is earlier from the date of delivery were not availed as such complainant failed to compliance the mandatory services required for new vehicle. There is no defect in the engine. The liability of OP no.2 is limited to the extent of repair or replacing the defect of the defective parts under the terms and conditions. The Ops no.1 and 2 already compensated the complainant while replacement of parts under warranty on different dates without any denial by the Ops. The repair from unauthorized mechanic the complainant has violated the warranty conditions. The complainant concealed that the car met with an accident and repair job was carried by OP no.1 on 26.12.2018 and complainant paid Rs.12,596/- towards painting and damaged parts in the accident. The complainant again brought her car for repair and Rs.9484/- paid on 09.02.2019. The reading of the car on 16.11.2018 was recorded 80599 kms where engine oil was changed. On 20.11.2018 it was recorded to 81223 Kms. and thereafter on 26.12.2018 reading was 86174 Kms and on 29.01.2019 it was recorded as 89562 Kms which shows that within two months from 16.11.2018 to 29.01.2019 the said car runs 8963 Kms. Thereafter on inspection of the car against engine oil consumption it was recommended by OP no.1 vide by its letter dated 1.2.2019 the said vehicle comes under severe maintenance and engine oil replacement after every 5000 Kms but the complainant still failed to act on the advice of the OP no.1. However, thereafter at 90529 Kms on 09.02.2019 engine oil was changed after running the car to 9930 Kms. The reading of the car was noted on 24.05.2019 as 98200 and the engine oil was changed. As per job card dated 24.05.2019 the reading was recorded to 98200 to shows that daily usage of the car average comes to 136 Kms. Approximately, from May 2017 to 24.05.2019. As such it is wrong and false allegations leveled that the said car has manufacturing defect and lastly prayed that the facts and circumstance of the present complaint may kindly be dismissed.
4. In support of her case the complainant submitted her self attested affidavit Ex.C-1 and some documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16 affidavit of Shri Paramjit Singh.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party no.1 has produced affidavit Ex.Op1/1 alongwith annexures Ex.Op1/1 to Ex.OP1/25 and closed evidence. Similarly, OP no.2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/29 and affidavit Ex.OP2/30 and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.
7. Now, come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by her in her prayer or not?
8. It transpires from Ex.C-3 the vehicle in question was produced by complainant for service on 25.10.2018 and engine oil changed under warranty. The mileage was noted as 76737 kms in the service centre of OP no.1. While the vehicle supra was purchased on 31.05.2017, this commission has the considered view that the complainant visited first time for service after one year and five months from the date of purchase of the car. It is writ large on the file as per Ex.C-4 on 16.11.2018 complainant’s car mileage was noted as 80599 kms. It means within 21 the car was run upto 3862 kms. Further, Ex.C-5 depicted that on 20.11.2018 the car vacuum pump was changed under warranty. The mileage of the car was noted 81221 Kms. On 29.01.2019 as per Ex.C-7 the mileage of the car mentioned as 89562 Kms within two months and 11 days the car was run upto 8963 Kms.
9. To trace out the veracity of truth, “whether any apparent manufacturing defect exits in the car or not?. This Commission has examined the utmost important document Ex.C-8 in which official of OP no.1 mentioned that the vehicle has been thoroughly checked for high engine oil consumption and mentioned that no manufacturing defect was found in the vehicle. The engine oil consumption in the vehicle depending on engine speed, load, frequency of acceleration and driving patren. The vehicle comes severe maintenance and OP no.1 recommended engine oil replacement after every 5000 kms. On the advice of OP no.1, the complainant visited on 09.02.2019 in the service centre. On 09.02.2019 the mileage of the car was noted as 90529 Kms. It means after 11 days the car was run upto 967 kms. It transpires from Ex.C-15 is a checking report prepared by Paramjit Singh. It is stated in the report that he is working mechanical and electrician from the last 20 years of car, jeep, van and gepsy etc. He further stated that he checked the vehicle and found that the engine having manufacturing defect. Due to this reason, oil of engine was changed after every 3500 kms. This manufacturing defect is not liable for remove the defect. Generally, these types of cars the engine oil cannot be changed before 20,000kms because oil is having good quality. Ex.C-16 is an affidavit of Shri Paramjit Singh. This Commission has the considered opinion from the perusal of Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16, Paramjit Singh has miserably failed to mention in his report as well as in his affidavit that he has passed any technical professional diploma /degree/ ITI certificate of automobiles. Moreover, the complainant did not move any application to this Commission to examine an independent expert opinion with regard to any manufacturing defect exits in the vehicle in question from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 13.05.2019 till date. We feel that Paramjit Singh failed to trace out any specific manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle in question in his checking report.
10. Per contra, it transpires from the perusal of Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Shri Manpreet Singh who served as technical leader of OP no.1. Para no.12 of the Ex.OP1/1 it is mentioned that there is no manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle in question. Had there been any issue qua engine oil consumption in the vehicle then the vehicle could not have covered 1,30,000 kms till 2019. It is writ large on the file Ex.C-9 the actual mileage of the vehicle was noted on 09.02.2019 as 90529 kms. Further, as per Ex.OP2/26 warranty booklet 175, it is crystal clear that A-2 operating on dusty roads “ Replacement of engine oil- every 5000 kms. ( 3000 miles) or six months. Further mentioned as B-I Heavily loaded vehicle (Example: using a camper, using a car top carrier etc. replacement of engine oil – every 5000 kms. ( 3000 miles) or six months. B-2 repeated short trips of less than 8 kms ( five miles) and out side temperatures remain below freezing ( engine temperature will not reach to normal temperature). Replacement of engine oil every 5000 kms. ( 3000 miles or six months). B-3 Extensive idling and/or low speed driving for a long distance such as police, taxi or door to door delivery use. Replacement of engine oil- every 5000 kms ( 3000 miles) or six months . This Commission has examined document Ex.OP2/29 affidavit of Manoj Kumar in para no.1 he pleaded that deponent/ he is a qualified automobile certified diagnosis master technical and having intensive technical knowledge and working a group technical leader of OP no.1. He further pleaded in para no.10 of his affidavit ( supra) that it is evident that the vehicle in question does not suffer from any sort of manufacturing defect as alleged and it is in a roadworthy condition. We feel that it transpires from the perusal of Ex.OP2/1 certificate issued by OP no.1 to their official Shri Manoj Kumar (as technical leader) joined since 10.01.2020. He had attended technical training since 01.06.2015 to 30.05.2016 at Banglore. Further, it is mentioned that Manoj Kumar conducted the technical inspection of the Toyota vehicles and he is a qualified technician. It is writ large on the file that Manoj Kumar completed National apprenticeship certificate from 24.09.2003 to 23.09.2005 in the trade of mechanic diesel. However, Manoj Kumar appended his National Trade Certificate of mechanic diesel held on July 2003. National Trade certificate issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of labour, National Council for vocational training. To prove the case OP no.2 also examined his witness Manoj Kumar’s affidavit which is Ex.OP2/29. Manoj Kumar also pleaded in para no.13 of his affidavit that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
11. This Commission has no hesitation to hold that the report of Shri Paramjit Singh which is Ex.C-15 having no force as compared to Shri Manoj Kumar ( Group Techinical Leader). Having professional qualified technical knowledge in the field of mechanic (diesel) trade. We feel that Manoj Kumar’s technical opinion is more reliable, cogent and trustworthy which he mentioned in his affidavit Ex.OP2/29.
12. We have the considered opinion that report of Paramjit Singh which is Ex.C-15 is not an independent technical report. Furthermore, if the contentions and pleadings of the complainant are presumed to be genuine one, then it is not possible that a manufacturing defect in the engine of the car in question can run till 24.05.2019 upto 98200 mileage kms. As per Ex.OP1/25 from the perusal of peculiar circumstances of the case, we hold that the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question by way of cogent evidence through an independent expert.
12. Resultantly, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint in hand and with careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we dismiss the complaint.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
14. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance
Announced.
December 12, 2023
( Kanwaljeet Singh) (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
