Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that on the allurement of representative of the Opposite Parties for  offering quality service and the benefits for getting the vehicle serviced from the office of the Opposite Parties at S.A.S Nagar, Mohali and additional incentives were offered to him by the caller if case the complainant got his vehicle serviced from the Opposite Parties, the complainant visited the office/Service Center of the Opposite Parties on 15/06/2019  as certain body shop repairs were needed to be done on the vehicle of the complainant. However, on reaching the service center of the Opposite Parties at Mohali, the complainant was surprised to see the callous attitude of the employees of the Opposite Parties and the complainant was not attended properly and had to wait endlessly for attention. It was only after complainant raised hue and cry one Trilok, Service advisor half heartedly attended to the complainant, whom all required jobs were clearly explained, but the service advisor, Trilok kept on insisting on replacement of front and rear bumpers and side fender and rubbers etc, at very nominal rates. As complainant had travelled all the way to Mohali from Moga relying on the promises made by the Opposite Parties he decided to leave his vehicle at Service Center of Opposite Parties. The vehicle was handed over to Mr. Trilok and a job order dated 15/06/2019 was created. The vehicle was thoroughly checked and inspected for any dents/scratches by Sh.Trilok which were mentioned on the Job Card/walk around Check sheet. The complainant left his vehicle with Opposite Parties, having assured yet again of quality service. The Job Card dated 15/06/19 prepared at the office of the Opposite Parties. In this regard, the complainant also informed the insurance company.  Necessary documents were provided to the staff of Opposite Parties, and Opposite Parties took signatures of the complainant on a number of forms and documents on the pretext of formalities. Complainant was told to get the delivery of vehicle on 19/06/2019. Thereafter, the complainant returned back to Moga same evening, and kept on contacting Mr. Trilok almost daily, but no satisfactory reply was given to him, as he was mentally harassed and stressed almost daily as no status of his vehicle was informed, although Insurance company surveyor had promptly done his duty after inspection of vehicle and after taking photographs of vehicle. The complainant sent his representative to the Office of Opposite Parties all the way from Moga on 19/06/2019 for delivery of vehicle, but he was sent back by the Opposite Parties and told to come back after two days as the vehicle was not ready for delivery. The complainant again sent his employee on 21/06/2019, who was shocked to know that no one had even touched the vehicle and it was just parked at the same place as on 15/06/2019 outside the Ops office. The complainant again spoke with Mr. Trilok and also to General Manager of Globe Toyota Mohali, Sh Amarinder Mann but no satisfactory reply was given by them. The complainant was told that due to excess workload and pending jobs, it may take a few more days to carry out repairs on the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant requested Mr Mann to promptly look after the repairs job as already eight days had passed, but he was very reluctant to talk and disconnected the phone of the complainant abruptly. The representative of the complainant stayed at Mohali for couple of days and visited the office of the Ops everyday and requested the Officials to complete the works, but all his requests went in vain, and he finally returned empty handed to Moga on 24/06/2019. Then left with no other option and being handicapped without vehicle the complainant himself visited the Office of the Opposite Parties all the way from Moga by bus on 26/06/2019 and was surprised to see the vehicle in a very dilapidated and tattered condition, with half works still pending. When complainant raised hue and cry, then only the G.M Mr.Mann and Mr.Trilok called repairs men and passed half hearted instructions for completing the jobs/repairs of the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant was assured that all works would be completed and was asked to come the next day. Complainant returned back to Moga by bus dejected. The complainant again visited Service Center of Ops on 27/06/2019 evening for receiving his vehicle, but was appalled to see shabby work done as side cladding rubber of fender was torn off and there was stark color mismatch of front bumper exhibiting rash works done in hurry and haste. When these were pointed out to Mr Trilok, he was more concerned about payment first. Complainant was shocked to see that the Front Grill of his vehicle was completely spoiled as some acidic substance had been spilled over it. It was also shown to Mr Trilok, who at first dismissed it saying that it was already there when the vehicle was brought to the service center on 15/06/2019. When the complainant showed the photographs clicked by him on 15/06/2019, clearly showing the clean and spotless Grill, Mr. Trilok called a painter and asked him to remove the stains. The painter tried his best, but the stains increased. When the stains darkened, the complainant asked the Ops to replace the Grill as it was completely spoiled and stained giving a tardy look to vehicle. On this, Mr. Trilok began making excuses and said that he will contact the Insurance Surveyor for photographs taken by him and after verification only he can decide. Complainant called Mr. Amarinder Mann on his phone, who said he had already left the Service Center, as it was over 6. P.M and asked him to come back next day. Complainant had to again return back to Moga by bus dejected and disappointed. That an amount of Rs 24948/- was paid by complainant through his Debit card of Bank of India, against which a receipt number 1750 dated 28/06/2019 was issued by service Center of Opposite Parties, and vehicle was handed over to complainant under compelling and circumstances, after thirteen painful days. At this stage, Mr Mann started insisting on another payment of Rs. 5000/- as storage charges and Rs. 1796/- as exterior beautification charges, which complainant turned down, but was told that vehicle will not be delivered unless a payment of Rs. 6796/- is given in cash. Complainant made the payment as he was not being handed over the vehicle. However, no receipt was issued for this payment and a Gate pass number 5139 dated 28/06/2019 was issued at 07:00 PM and finally the complainant got his vehicle and returned back to Moga in his vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant kept on calling and messaging Mr Amarinder Mann regarding the pending works and broken fittings i.e broken glove box, bottle holders etc, but with no response whatsoever was given by him. The problems of complainant kept on piling as the defects already brought to the notice of Opposite Parties were not taken care of and the vehicle was subsequently found with many other defects that occurred at the service centre of the Opposite Parties. The left side brakelight was found defective, although it was mentioned in Job card and the same was already brought to the notice of staff of Ops on 15/06/19 and 28/06/19. Thereafter, there were further complaints regarding sound from seats, rear windows and brakes in this regard. In this way, the  complainant has been in lots of stress and tension as a result of the above mentioned unprofessional and negligent act and conduct of the Opposite Parties and has gone through lots of mental agony and hardship. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to refund an amount of Rs.77,353/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit and also to   pay Rs.10 lakhs  as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment and Rs.33,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted. Hence, the present complaint.

2.       On notice,  Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 deals in the sales and after sales service of the vehicle manufactured by the Toyota Kirloskar Motors and the vehicles manufactured by Toyota  passes through strict quality tests and after due certifications/ PDI by  the quality department,  the vehicles  are rolled out from the manufacturer facility for onward sale to the customer. The vehicle in question was reported for accidental repair to the dealership of Opposite Party No.1 on 15.06.2019. Claim form was filled and signed by the complainant and in the said form the complainant himself disclosed the brief particulars of accident as “Vehicle was hit from back by a car and subsequently it hit a cemented structure of electric pole from front side”. The concerned insurance company was informed accordingly and the insurance company deputed its surveyor and informed the same to the dealer of the answering Opposite Party vide e-mail dated 17.06.2019. The estimate for repair was prepared and the insurance company allowed the claim partially. It was after verbal approval from the complainant 6o ay for the job work not approved by the concerned insurance company of the vehicle in question that the job order for repair work was opened by the dealership of the answering Opposite Party. Thereafter, the vehicle  in question was repaired by Opposite Party No.1 and an invoice dated 25.06.2019 was raised by the dealership of answering Opposite Party for Rs.50,027/- and the insurance company  approved Rs.25,079/- and the complainant was supposed to pay the balance amount towards invoice raised by the dealership of the answering Opposite Party. On 28.06.2019 the complainant visited the dealership of Opposite Party for taking the delivery of the vehicle in question and made the balance payment of Rs.24,948/- towards the invoice amount for accidental repair of the vehicle in question and did not clear the amount of Rs.1796/- towards invoice raised by Opposite Party for exterior beautification work done at his request by the dealership of the Opposite Party and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.                     On merits, Opposite Party No.1 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them on the preliminary objections.    All other allegations made by the complainant are totally wrong and specifically denied and it is, therefore, prayed that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal.  

3.       None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and hence,  Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms.Meenakshi, Head Customer Relations Ex.OP1/W alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed by Opposite Party No.1  and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 have  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as written reply respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that despite charging the amount of on account of repair charges etc. the Opposite Parties have failed to provide the best services despite repeated requests and reminders and in this way, the  complainant has been in lots of stress and tension as a result of the above mentioned unprofessional and negligent act and conduct of the Opposite Parties and has gone through lots of mental agony and hardship. On the other hand,  ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle  in question was repaired by Opposite Party No.1 and an invoice dated 25.06.2019 was raised by the dealership of answering Opposite Party for Rs.50,027/- and the insurance company  approved Rs.25,079/- and the complainant was supposed to pay the balance amount towards invoice raised by the dealership of the answering Opposite Party. On 28.06.2019 the complainant visited the dealership of Opposite Party for taking the delivery of the vehicle in question and made the balance payment of Rs.24,948/- towards the invoice amount for accidental repair of the vehicle in question and did not clear the amount of Rs.1796/- towards invoice raised by Opposite Party for exterior beautification work done at his request by the dealership of the Opposite Party and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties by placing any document or proof  to corroborate his assertion, whereas the ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has strenuously contended that the vehicle  in question was repaired by Opposite Party No.1 to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter, the Opposite Parties  raised the bill of Rs.50,027/- and the insurance company  approved Rs.25,079/- and the complainant was supposed to pay the balance amount towards invoice raised by the Opposite Party, but on 28.06.2019 the complainant visited the dealership of Opposite Party for taking the delivery of the vehicle in question and made the balance payment of Rs.24,948/- towards the invoice amount for accidental repair of the vehicle in question and did not clear the amount of Rs.1796/- towards invoice raised by Opposite Party for exterior beautification work done at his request by the dealership of the Opposite Party, rather chose to file the instant complaint.  Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency or negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.  

8.       Hence, in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.