Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/121/2018

T.Premilan S/o.Mr.Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lanson Motors Pvt.Ltd Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Pushkala

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:09.08.2018                                                                      

                                                  Date of disposal            :15.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                   TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                             : MEMBER-1

                                THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.121/2018

 

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 15^th  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

• T.Premilan.
• S/o.Mr.Thomas

No.1/14, Leela nagar, 

Velachery Main Road,

East Tambaram,

Chennai-600 059….Complainant

•  

1. Lanson Toyota,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

No-10, Radial Road,

Chennai-600 100.

 

2. Lanson Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep by its General Manager Operation,

34, Poonamallee High Road,

Opp. To Rohini Theatre,

Koyambedu, Chennai,

Tamil Nadu-600 107.

1.  

 

Counsel for the complainant                      :M/s.V.Pushkala & L.Kavitha

 

Counsel for the opposite parties              :M/s.M.S.Soundara Rajan &

                                                                B.Gowthamarajan & M.Asokaa

 

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.    : PRESIDENT     

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this commission to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh jointly and severally for the deficiency in service committed by them, and all doors should be fixed as free of cost and cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he purchased a Toyota Etios car bearing No. TN 11 V 6279 for the price of Rs.764961.95 with tourist permit under hypothecation on 17.02.2017.  The periodic maintenance and service has been done for about 10 months under the care of lanson service center since the car was bought. On 10.07.2017 it was a heavy rain he was on my way to suddenly he found rain water is getting inside the vehicle through all four doors. Shocking by looking at, informed to 2^nd opposite party and enquired the same. On 12.07.2017 the complainant brought the vehicle to the service and it was checked and informed that there is no water leakage found. On 26.07.2017 again the complainant experienced water leakage and informed the same to the service station and was asked to bring the vehicle and for the confirmation the complaint took photo of the leakage and sent them over whatsapp. On 02.08.2017 again the complainant experienced water leakage an informed the same brought the vehicle to the service station and received the vehicle back on 07.08.2017, there was a huge loss to the complainant. On 12.08.2017 the water leakage issue was found in the heavy rain and water leakage started oozing in the car, the same was explained and sent to the service team so they found a workaround that too changing door beading will arrest the water leakage and fixed. On 15.08.2018 there was a heavy rain in purducherry he experienced water leakage in his car and the same was informed to the service station on the same day itself. The service team told the complainant is free to bring the car and the issue will be fixed. On 02.09.2017 again the complainant experienced water leakage and on 04.09.2017 the complainant brought the car to the service station and received the car back on 05.09.2017.  On 07.09.2017 water leakage when the trip and went to the opposite party service station and checked the vehicle. But this water leakage issue is not fixed. On 21.09.2017 all the four door were getting leaked due to raining.  The complainant brought the vehicle to the service station and received on the same day but the defect was not fixed but they said water leakage was not seen or happening for four doors but saying that car beadings of four doors have to be changed but they changed the beading for the drive side door only through and the leakage was not arrested this time too. On 04.11.2017 the complainant checked the leakage when there was raining but it was arrested and the complainant sent the car to service station on 08.11.2017 at 09.30 AM.  As a demo to  ascertain the service engineer poured water on top of his vehicle and has shown no water leakage.  The complainant informed the senior engineer to pour huge quantum of water on the top of the vehicle at least for 15 mins, they found water leakage the doors. After the complainant inspected the vehicle when cleaning inside the car and found dent on the post behind the driver seat asking which they pacified the complainant to make all arrangement as free of cost and the issue will be fixed they quoted as saying.  Further contended that he approached the Lanson Toyota service station later situated at Pallikaranai and the water leakage problem was not solved and the complainant was not informed by the opposite party that the leakage is due to the not fixing the speaker by the electrician who done the work outside the opposite party service center which was the root cause for damage to the doors and for leakage of water inside the car, but the complainant contended that the opposite party has sold the car knowing about the water leakage and the car was sold with defective nature by which the complainant was put to hardship and the leakage problem remain unsolved and hence the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence claimed compensation. 

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:-

          The opposite parties deny allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitter hereunder and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party submitted that the complainant has purchased Etios bearing reg no. TN 11 V 6279 with tourist permit for commercial purpose.  Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle to the service stations on 12.07.2017 with the complaint that water entering inside the vehicle through all four doors.  The service team had checked the vehicle to find out whether water entering through all the doors both front and rear side of the vehicle with water in full force and informed that there was no leakage. Further submitted that the technical team fund out that the complainant had fixed non OE  speakers, Velcro mat and central lock actuator in all doors in his vehicle by the outside local workshop and further observed that while fixing the Velcro, they failed to fix the same properly.  It is submitted that doors were damaged and wiring in doors was affected while fixing the Non OE speakers and central Lock Actuator in all four doors, therefore the water leaking had been caused due to fixing Non OE products. It is not out of place to mention that the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any damages caused to vehicle due to Non OE products fixed by outside local workshop.  The complainant refused to give approval for removing the Non OE and the same was recorded in the quality complaint remarks. It is submitted that the complainant gave approval to remove the Non OE parts by complainant and refixed the same as per OE fitment.  The opposite parties have replaced door weather strip FR RHS under warranty and door service cover on payment and confirmed no water leakage. Further that after a month the complainant cameup with same complaint and after changing door beading the leakage was arrested.  On 24.10.2017 20k service was done. On 05.01.2018 the complainant came to pallikaranai branch and reported that there was some abnormal noise coming out from engine and the service team has noticed that the tensioner assembly was broken and they replaced the same and the vehicle was delivered with full satisfaction.  On 22.11.2018 came to service station the noise coming from all the doors the service team attended and replaced all the door clips on FOC as good will and arrested the noise. Further the complainant did not make any complaint about the water leaking. Fixing Non OE parts by outside workshop is the root cause for the damages caused in the vehicle as a result water started leaking inside the vehicle. The complainant has to blame for damages caused to the vehicle due to Non OE parts fixed by outside work shop and finding fault with the opposite parties is sustainable. Hence there was no deficiency in service alleged in the complainant.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant has filed written argument, proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked on their side.The opposite parties have filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 and B5 were marked on his side.

4.POINT NO :1 and 2:-

          The fact that the complainant has purchased a Toyota Etios Grey color car bering Reg.No.TN 11 V 6279 with tourist permit for a sum of Rs.764961.95 under hypothecation on 17.02.2017 from the 2^nd opposite party is not in dispute. According to the complainant on 10.07.2017 there was a heavy rain and he found rain water getting inside the vehicle through all the four doors and on 12.07.2017 the vehicle was brought to the service station where it was checked and informed that there was no water leakage but on 26.07.2017, 02.08.2017 and 12.08.2017,15.08.2017 the complainant experienced water leakage and the same was informed to the service station but the leakage was not arrested inspite of changing door beading by the opposite party and further contended that he approached the Lanson Toyota service station later situated at Pallikaranai and the water leakage problem was not solved and the complainant was not informed by the opposite party that the leakage is due to the not fixing the speaker by the electrician who done the work outside the opposite party service center which is the root cause for damage to the doors and for leakage of water inside the car, but the complainant contended that the opposite party has sold the car knowing about the water leakage and the car was sold with defective nature by which the complainant was put to hardship and the leakage problem remain unsolved and hence the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence claimed compensation. 

          5.  But on the other hand it was contended by the opposite party that the car was purchased with tourist permit for commercial purpose and therefore the complaint is not maintainable and further contended when the vehicle was brought to the service station the service team checked the vehicle thoroughly and informed on 12.07.2017 that there was no leakage and thereafter the technical team found out that the complainant had fixed Non original equipment namely speakers etc., in all the doors by outside local workshop and while fixing so they removed the beading and failed to fixit it properly and the doors were damaged and wiring in the doors were affected while fixing non OE speakers and therefore the water leaking was caused which is purely due to the negligence on the part of complainant and later by getting approval the from the complainant the Non OE parts were removed and original equipment was fixed by the opposite party and door beading was changed and leakage was arrested on 24.10.2017 and subsequently on 22.11.2018 the complainant represented that noise is coming from all the doors and the service team attended and replace the door clips free of charge and arrested the noise and on 05.01.2018 at Pallikaranai branch the alleged abnormal noise from the engine was also set right by the opposite party to the satisfaction of the complainant and denied the alleged deficiency in service on their part.

          6.  It is found from Ex.A2 at page No.5 of complainant type set that there was rain water entry into the cabin and engine side noise reported in respect of the vehicle Ex.A3 are Email communication between the complainant and opposite party Ex.A4 damaged door photos and Ex.A6 is whatsapp photos.  It is found from         page 10 of the complainant type set that on 08.11.2017 the vehicle had covered 20265 kms and the back door pad and door lock spring kit were replaced at the 1^st opposite party service center and at page No.22 of complainant type set it is found that on 07.08.2017 the complainant was advised by the opposite party to remove all non OE speakers and non OE wiring which is the cause for leakage of water inside the vehicle.  The non OE speakers and wiring was admittedly not done in the opposite party service station.  Hence the opposite party cannot be found fault for the alleged water leakage which was due to improper removal of door beading and improper refixing by a outside electrician. Though it is stated in the complaint that the complainant is earning livelihood by running the vehicle and not using for commercial purpose at page 46 and 47 of the complainant type set in a Email communication sent by the complainant, the complainant himself admitted that he will earn money only if the car goes out for rent which will go to show that the vehicle was used by him for commercial purpose and hence if so used the complainant will not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Sec 2(7)(ii) of CP Act 2019. 

          7.  As per Ex.B1 though the vehicle has  a warranty 36 months or 11000 kms whichever is earlier as per Ex.B1 page 3 any repair by unauthorized Toyota dealer or materials not supplied by Toyota will not be covered under the warranty since the complainant has fixed non OE speakers outside the Toyota service station the warranty is not applicable and hence the complainant cannot alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party on that ground.  The fact that non OE wiring was done is also established at page 10 of Ex.B3, under Ex.B5 the complainant was ask to remove non OE speaker and wiring and hence from the document filed by both the parties it is found that the root cause for the alleged leakage of water into the vehicle and damage to the doors were only due to the fixing of non OE speaker and wiring outside the authorized workshop by an electrician at the choice of the complainant and it is further found opposite party has removed non OE parts by fixing original and thereby arrested the leakage of water as well as the engine noise sound to the satisfaction of the complainant and it is further found that the complainant failed to establish that he is a consumer and failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Point No.1 and 2 is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.3

          Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 and 2 since there is no deficiency in service by the Opposite parties and the complainant is not a consumer and hence he is not entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point no.3 answered accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15^th day of November 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	20.02.2017	Car registration certificate.
Ex.A2		Service payment receipts series.
Ex.A3		All email communication chain.
Ex.A4		Damaged doors photos.
Ex.A5		Damaged post in the car cabin photo
Ex.A6		Whatsapp photos.
Ex.A7	15.04.2018	Receipts of jewels sold.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1		Extract of owner’s manual.
Ex.B2		Receipt.
Ex.B3		Job order.
Ex.B4		Email communication.
Ex.B5		Receipt.

 

 

MEMBER  I                            MEMBER II                       PRESIDENT