Haryana

Karnal

CC/125/2017

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Globe Toyota - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Kumar Barana

23 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                             Complaint No.125 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 03.04.2017

                                                         Date of decision:23.10.2018

 

Sukhwinder Singh son of Shri Ranjit Singh resident of House no.431, New Prem Nagar, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Globe Toyota, Madhuban G.T. Road (NH-1) Karnal through its prop.

2. Grace Toyota Cosmic Motors India Pvt. Ltd. House no.511 near Sector-3, South City, Bypass Road, Rewari.

3. Toyota Kirloskar Motors (TKM) Head Office: 10^th Floor Canberra Tower, UB City no.24 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560001.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Naresh Kumar Barana Adv. for complainant.

                Shri Surender Kumar Advocate for OP no.1.

                OP no.2 exparte.

                Shri S.R. Bansal Advocate for OP no.3.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he had purchased one car Totota Etios Live GD bearing registration no.HR54C-0013 on 18.10.2014 from OP no.2 for a sum of Rs.5,99,800/-. At the time of purchase OPs given warranty that any stage if there is any problem then the OPs are bound to change the vehicle with new one. From the very beginning the said vehicle created problems. The complainant approached the OP no.1 20 to 25 times in one year with the problems of noise from all doors on opening and closing the door within two months; AC was not working in the month of March, 2015; paint peel off from both the upper corner of Diggi of the vehicle; paint peel off on weather strips of all doors of vehicle in January, 2015; Hood heat insulator fitted on inner side of bonet brusted very badly in March, 2015; Rear bumper colour getting yellow in April, 2015; Irritating sound in AC vent start in April, 2015; all door glasses of vehicle create unhappy sound when glasses are slightly down; A khad-khad noise became started in all doors after weather strips replaced on 16.10.2015; vibration and more engine sound in car cabin after October, 2015; low mileage of vehicle noticed in June, 2015; wiper of vehicle is not working proper; Fresh Air duct is not working well for a long time; Horn pad became tight and sound of horn is not normal and More gap in diggi from right hand side and starting problem of vehicle from July, 2016. It is further alleged that in the month of December, 2014 complainant found paint peel off from both upper corner of diggi of the vehicle. The complainant approached OP no.1 for this defect. OP no.1 checked the defect and take picture on camera and told the complainant that they will discuss with TKM and informed the complainant. After so many requests in July-August 2015 OP no.1 painted both the upper corner of diggi. But in December 2015 the paint peel off again from the upper corner of diggi. In January 2015 the complainant found paint peel off on weather strips of all doors of the abovesaid vehicle. Wheri Himanshu Kapoor, Gurmukh Singh and Madam Seema of OP no.1 checked the vehicle thoroughly three-four times. The OP no.1 told the complainant that it will be rectified but till date the problem could not be resolved. The complainant approached the OP no.1 to remove the defect in the Air conditioner in March, 2015, 4.4.2015, 14.4.2015, 21.4.2015, 23.5.2015, 8.6.2015 to 11.06.2015, 4.6.2016, 9.6.2016 and 10.6.2016.The mechanic of OP no.1 and TKM mechanic recovered and refilled the AC gas and compressor oil many times but there is always found less gas and less compressor oil at the time of recovery. A khad-khad noise become started after replacing weather strips of all door on 16.10.2015. Regarding this issue complainant approached the OP no.1. OP no.1 take the road test many times and found the noise on 17.10.2015. OP no.1 told the complainant they will discuss with TKM and then inform him. After few days the OP no.1 informed the complainant that TKM advised OP no.1 to replace again all weather strips. The OP no.1 replaced all the weather strips on 12.10.2015 but the problem of khad-khad was as it is. In April, 2015 complainant noticed that rear bumper colour getting yellow  and he approached the OP no.1 to resolve the problem but the defect could not be rectified. It is further alleged that complainant noticed vibration and more engine cabin noise after first service on 8.10.2015. On 10.06.2015 Mr. Manoj Kumar TKM mechanic worked on vibration but vibration and cabin noise of engine fault as it is. On 31.3.2016 complainant went to OP no.1 to check fresh air switch as it became free. There should be a jail in front of fresh air hole but OP no.1 refused to this work without charge. So complainant have to pay Rs.1880/- for TKM manufacturing defect. The wiper of car is not working well. The glass becomes blur when wiper is working in rainy days. OP no.1 checked the fault but did not resolve the same. Complainant approached may times to check the mileage of car as the car is giving low milage 15Kmpl. As the TKM is claiming 23.59 kmpl but OP no.1 did not check the mileage. It is further alleged t hat the horn pad became tight and colour of horn pad also faded. Sound of horn is not normal. OP no.1 checked the button and told the same was replaced with new one but it was not changed till now. It is further alleged that hood heat insulator which is to be fitted on inner side of bonet, crack and burst in March, 2015 and replaced on 4.4.2015.  In December 2015 complainant contacted telephonically to head of OP no.1 to discuss why the faults/defects did not rectified. Head of OP no.1 sent Mr. Himanshu and Mr. Gurmukh Singh to check the vehicle. Both of them checked the faults and said that they will reply after discussion with head of OP no.1 but there is no reply from OP no.1 till 6.2.2016.  Then complainant sent a registered letter on 6.3.2016 to Mr. Himanshu and Mr. Gurmukh Singh explaining all the defects/faults occurred in that time but there is no reply till 11.04.2016. It is further alleged that complainant contacted with TKM customer care many times at 18004250001 at Bangalore more than 40 times some audio recording is available with TKM team and OP no.1 in which they admitted their fault and negligence. Thereafter, complainant sent several complaints through e-mail at TKM e-mail address but no satisfactory reply or solutions given to complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that the complaint filed by the complainant cannot be tried summarily as it involves a lot of technical issues. The complainant is relying upon 65 annexures and various recordings which require a detailed examination and cross examination and cannot be tried summarily, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the vehicle in question was not purchased from the dealership of OP no.1 by the complainant. It is further stated that OP no.1 is not the manufacturer of the vehicle in question as the vehicle in question has been manufactured by OP no.3. The vehicle manufactured by OP no.3 through strict quality tests and after due certifications/PDI(pre delivery inspection) by the quality department of the manufacturing company, the vehicle are rolled out from the manufacturer facility for onward sale to the customer. The manufacturer company is globally renowned for manufacturing of quality vehicle and carries a great reputation in this regard. It is further stated that if any manufacturing defect occurred in the vehicle then dealer is not liable to replace the vehicle. It is further denied that complainant approached the OP no.1 20 to 25 times in one year and total visits more than 40 times till to date. Complainant has failed to prove the same. The vehicle in question was properly attended and inspected by the service team of OPs as and when the complainant raised any concern the same were properly attended under the guidance of the manufacturing company i.e. OP no.3 and on no occasion it was found that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and the problems, if any occurred was due to normal wear and tear or usage of the vehicle in question and the same was properly rectified/resolved by the OP from time to time as per the terms and conditions of the owner’s manual/warranty terms and conditions. It is further stated that the in January, 2015 the complainant found peel off on weather strips of all the doors of the vehicle and the G.M. Service and Head Customer Relation of OP attended the vehicle is incorrect and the same are specifically denied. No such concern was raised by the complainant in January, 2015. Between 18.11.2014 and 23.03.2015 the vehicle in question neither visited the dealership of the OP for any concern nor complainant complained about the said concern. It is further stated that the said concern was raised by the complainant first time on 4.5.2016 when the vehicle in question had already covered 14719 KMs. The complainant was already informed on 24.12.2015 that the weather strips of the vehicle in question needs to be replaced as they were deformed and the appointment was fixed with him for 25.12.2015 for getting the weather strips replaced but the complainant did not get the same replaced under warranty. The deformation of weather strips and resulted in paint pill-off from doors from inner side. Now the door also needs to be repainted from inner side. As such the same is not a manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The complaint regarding Hood Insulator torn off was forwarded by OP to OP no.3 and OP no.3 vide their revert dated 26.03.2015 informed the OP to educate the complainant to avoid high pressure wash. It is further stated that the road test of the vehicle in question was taken alongwith the complainant when the complainant raised the concern that AC cooling is low, though the AC was working properly. On 17.10.2015 the complainant complained about the rear side doors rubber noise on rough road and it was apprised to the complainant by OP that the said concern to the manufacturer. As such FI was forwarded to AKM on 20.10.2015 by the complainant on behalf of the OP. On 21.10.2015 the complainant was informed that the manufacturer company has recommended to change the defective parts and the complainant was telephonically requested to get replaced the same under warranty. Complainant apprised the OP that he will come within a week to get the same replaced. On 27.10.2015 the vehicle in question was reported to the OP no.1 for getting the weather strips of vehicle were replaced under warranty by the OP. It is further stated that OP vide letter dated 30.09.2016 the complainant that the Toyota Vehicle pass through strict quality tests and after due certifications by the quality department of the manufacturing company, the vehicle are rolled out from the manufacturing facility for onward sale to the customer. It is further apprised to the complainant that the vehicle is free from any sort of manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. It is further stated that all parameters of the vehicle were checked in accordance with the guidelines of the manufacturing company and the same were found in ok condition. Complainant after satisfying himself with the work done paid the invoiced amount towards 40000Km service work and took his vehicle back after signing the satisfaction note. So the vehicle in question is Ok and there is no manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint. It is further stated that the affidavit of the technical expert of the OPs has neither been rebutted by the complainant not complainant adduced any expert evidence to prove that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 15.5.2017.

4.             OP no.3 filed his written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice and jurisdiction. On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle is out of warranty as clearly mentioned by Globe Toyota, hence no question of relief is required nor tenable. It is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further submitted that the vehicle was purchased from Rewari, which is an admitted fact. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C88 and closed the evidence on 30.1.2018.

6.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Himanshu Kapoor Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.83, affidavit of Gurmukh Singh Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed their evidence on 8.6.2018 and 5.7.2018.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             The main objection of the OPs is that the technical issue is involve in the present case, which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. Hence we firstly decide this issue.

9.             The complainant produced the CD on the file. It is pertinent to mention here that proceedings before this Forum are summary proceedings and the CD cannot be taken into consideration unless and until the same is proved by cogent evidence. Without any cogent proof, it cannot be said that there was voice of complainant in the CD.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that complainant relied upon 88 documents including CD and OP no.1 relied upon 83 documents and OP no.3 relied upon 4 documents. Without detail and sufficient evidence, it will not be possible to decide the matter in question in the summary proceedings before this Forum.

11.           On appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that the Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the matter in controversy where elaborate and detailed evidence can be produced. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. In case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh wherein it has been  mentioned that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

12.           Hence without going into other aspect of the case, we dispose off the complaint and both the parties at liberty to approach the Court/Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, the parties will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:23.10.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member