Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/662/2019

Mr. Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Globe Toyota - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Jasuja Adv.

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	662 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	23.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	19.09.2023

 

                     

            

 

Jaspal Singh s/o Sukhram Singh Gill, Resident of House No.1228, Sector 68, Mohali.

                 ...  Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Globe Toyota, B-51, Phase-6, Industrial Area, Mohali, through its Managing Director

 

2]  EM PEE Motors Ltd., Plot No.177-H, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh

 

3]  Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Baddi Industrial Area, Ramanagar, Bangalore

 

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                  MEMBER

 

Present:

Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Shivam, Counsel for Op No.1 Sh.S.R.Bansal, Counsel for OP No.2 Sh.Umesh Kumar, Counsel for OP No.3.

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant precisely is that he purchased Toyota Corolla Altis D-4D Model Car from the OP No.2 in the year 2010 for Rs.13,83,600/-. It is averred that the complainant get the said car timely serviced as well as repaired from the OPs No.1 & 2. It is also averred that on 6.2.2019 the complainant got the battery of subject car replaced with new battery of Amaron Company from battery showroom (Ann.C-2). The complainant got the subject vehicle serviced from the OP No.1 on 7.2.2019 for an amount of Rs.16809/- (Ann.C-3). It is submitted that after service, the complainant arrived home in Mohali at about 7.00 PM but after some time, he found the subject car burning and the fire was got doused with the efforts of fire brigade (Ann.C-6). The matter was also reported to the police whereupon DDR in respect of the fire incident of subject car was recorded (Ann.C-4).  It is also submitted that the said fire incident in the subject vehicle was also recorded in CCTV installed nearby house (Ann.C-5). It is pleaded that the vehicle in question caught fire immediately after returning from the workshop of the OP No.1 and the said fire clearly attributed to the workmanship/negligence of the mechanics of the OP No.1, who had worked on the subject vehicle.  The matter was reported to the OP No.1 whereupon the Official of the OP No.1 inspected the vehicle and assured of its repair and compensating the complainant, but later the OP No.3 vide letter dated 24.2.2019 informed the complainant that on the basis of alleged inspection conducted by it with the OP No.1 on 14.2.2019, it has come to the conclusion that there is no manufacturing defect found in the vehicle and the possible cause of the fire in the subject vehicle might be due to some external factors (Ann.C-9). It is submitted that the complainant neither joined in the alleged inspection nor provided with any such report. It is also submitted that the OP No.3 vide letter dated 8.3.2019 again responded that probable cause of fire might be due to some external factors. The OP No.1 also provided the initial estimate of repair of the subject car for Rs.13,80,742.46 vide letter dated 8.3.2019 (Ann.C-10).  It is pleaded that the OPs are running away from their liability of compensating/repairing the subject vehicle, which got burnt either due to manufacturing defect or due to negligence in their workmanship when the vehicle came for scheduled service and instead they are taking false and wrong pleas to deny the claim to complainant.  A legal notice was also sent to the OPs in this regard, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OP NO.1 has filed reply stating that the subject vehicle was reported to it for scheduled service at reading of 325537 Kms. against scheduled service to be done at 320000 kms. It is stated that the complainant was informed about the outside fitted Fog Lamps, Head Lights with non-genuine wires but he did not pay any heed to rectify the same.  It is also stated that the complainant was advised to change the alternator of the vehicle costing about Rs.50,000/- but he did not pay any heed (Ann.OP-1/3 & OP-1/4). The complainant took the delivery of vehicle after service after being satisfied.  It is submitted that after receipt of the information from complainant about the fire incident in the subject vehicle, the official of answering OPs visited the premises of the complainant and asked the complainant whether he informed the concerned insurance company of the subject vehicle about the fire incident to which he replied that insurance of the subject vehicle had already expired few months back but he did not supply the copy of even the expired insurance policy.  It is also submitted that the vehicle was got inspected from the technical expert of the company, though the complainant was not present despite prior intimation, and after investigation, it was found that fire harzard in the subject vehicle was due to external factors i.e. outside fitments and not due to negligence of workmanship or manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, which was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 24.2.2019. It is pleaded that neither the defect in the alternator is the root cause of the fire nor the fire started from alternator area as alleged.  It is submitted that initial repair estimate of the car in question was given to the complainant but instead of giving his approval for repair he filed present complaint.  It is denied that the fire in the subject vehicle occurred due to any manufacturing defect or due to negligence in workmanship during scheduled service. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

         The OP No.2 has also filed precise written version and while admitting the factual matrix of case as matter of record, stated that the entire story revolves in between the complainant and the OPs No.1 & 3 because the complainant is alleging the negligence and mistake against the OP No.1, hence complaint qua the OP No.2 be dismissed. Other allegations have been denied being not related to it. 

         The OP No.3 has filed written version stating that the complainant was clearly advised on the day of service as well as on previous service appointments by OPs No.1 & 2 about the service requirements regarding the replacement of alternator, but the complainant failed to act as per the advise of the OPs No.1 & 2 (Ann.2/Opp-3).  It is pleaded that as per Inspection Report (Ann.-3/opp-3) it is clear that there is no manufacturing defect found in the vehicle that could lead to fire.  It is submitted that during the vehicle investigation, the role of Rule, Oil, Electrical & Exhaust factors for cause of fire were examined, the conditions of the same were found good and it was confirmed that the fire was not caused due to any manufacturing defect.  It is also submitted that upon inspection, it was found that the subject vehicle was repaired outside for a number of times and non-genuine wiring and repairs were also found in the vehicle   (Ann.4/opp-3).  It is pleaded that it has been almost 9 years since the vehicle has been purchased and the complainant has availed services from unauthorized workshops, which violates the terms & conditions of the warranty. It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP NO.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant contoverting the assertion of the OPs made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record including written arguments.

 

6]       From the thorough perusal of the record, it is clear that car in question i.e. Toyota Corolla Altis D-4D, purchased in the year 2010 by the complainant had admittedly covered the distance of more than 325000 kilometers till Feb., 2019 i.e. more than 36000 kilometers per year. 

7]       However, on 7.2.2019 the said car was damaged due to fire within.  The claim of the complainant is that the car in question was damaged due to fire as a result of poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in it as the fire incident took place on the day in evening when the car was got serviced, whereas the stand of OPs is that the subject car caught fire due to external factors of outside fitments etc. and not due to any workmanship or manufacturing defect, as alleged.

 

8]       It is evident that the subject car was out of warranty period on the day of fire incident and it was also not insured with any insurance company at the time of fire incident.  In our opinion the wear & tear of the vehicle after covering such long distance of more than 325000 kilometer is obvious. The complainant has not denied about any outside fitments used in the car in question. The servicing of the vehicle only relates to checking of its smooth functioning, change of consumables like oil, rubber parts etc. and the warranty on the vehicle cannot be extended indefinitely, after expiry of prescribed warranty period.  Further there is no authentic or substantial expert opinion of an authorized agency/establishment/ organization from the side of complainant establishing that the subject vehicle caught fire due to manufacturing defect in it.  So far the Inspection Report of Sh.Joginder Kumar Kashyap, dated 10.11.2022 is concerned, the same is neither from an authorized engineer nor any qualification (technical or otherwise) has been mentioned in it about the person who prepared it, hence cannot considered or relied upon.

 

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the view that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OPs.  Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned. 

Announced                                                     

19.09.2023                                                               Sd/-         

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER