Tamil Nadu
North Chennai
174/2012
K.Sarvanan, - Complainant(s)
Versus
Lnson Motors - Opp.Party(s)
M/s.G.Surya Narayanan
06 May 2016
ORDER
Complaint presented on: 20.07.2012
Order pronounced on: 06.05.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
FRIDAY THE 06th DAY OF MAY 2016
C.C.NO.174/2012
K.Saravanan,
S/O. Mr. S.Kannaiyan,
Residing at No.8/35, Kutti Gramini Street,
Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028.
..... Complainant
..Vs..
1. Lanson Motors Ltd.,
Having office at
No.34, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600107.
2. Harsha Automobiles P.Ltd., (Harsha Toyota)
No.52, Poonamallee High Road,
Kumananchavadi,
Poonamallee,
Chennai – 600 056.
3.Toyata Kirlosker Motor Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area,
Bangalore,
Rural District,
Karanataka – 562 109.
|
| |
...Opposite Parties |
|
Date of complaint : 08.08.2012
Counsel for Complainant : M/S. G. Surya Narayanan
Counsel for 1st & 3rd Opposite Party : S.K. Srinivasan
Counsel for 2nd Opposite Party : M/S. C.Ravichandran
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant Mr.Indiran had purchased a new Innova Car from the 1st Opposite Party on 02.09.2010 bearing registration No.TN 05 AE 7686. The Opposite Party is the dealer of 3rd Opposite Party/manufacturer. The warranty for the said car is 36 months or one lakh kilo meters whichever comes first. The warranty is also transferable. The Complainant purchased the said vehicle from Mr. Indiran. The car started giving problem within few months of the purchase. The 2nd Opposite Party examined the vehicle and informed him that the Cylinders/Injectors in the vehicle have to be replaced for Rs.85,000/- The dealer told the Complainant that the vehicle can be repaired on payment of Rs.85,000/- and he will get the amount from the Head Office. Hence Mr.Indiran paid the amount and cylinder replaced. The said Indiran without informing the defects sold the vehicle to the Complainant on 30.01.2012. On 03.02.2012 the Complainant replaced the clutch plate for an amount of Rs.10,000/- with Lanson Toyota Motors Pvt. Ltd., at Pallikaranai. However on 06.02.2012, the vehicle failed to start. The Complainant informed the fact to the 1st Opposite Party. On 13.02.2012 the 1st Opposite Party informed that there is no pressure in the supply pump and therefore they are planning to send the pump to the manufacturer DENSO for diagnosis. Further the 1st Opposite Party estimated a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- for engine overhaul, four number of injectors and fuel pump to be overhauled. The low compression pressure builds up and back compression appears in the engine, are the creations of cylinders/injectors as a compression or pressure will be created for movement of piston which will accelerate energy to run the car. Therefore when the cylinders have been replaced few months prior by the dealer of the 3rd Opposite Party viz., the 2nd Opposite Party, the same was not properly done and during that period alone, they have put in extra washer to avoid engine noise and the seals are the one affixed by the dealer at the time of repair and delivery and the same if found to be wrongly done, the 3rd Opposite Party is held to be responsible vicariously for the acts of their dealer. It is pertinent to point out that the four injectors/cylinders which was replaced at the costs of Rs.85,000/- was also sought to be replaced at a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. This will show that it is only due to the poor workmanship of the Opposite Party dealer that the problem is recurring and the 3rd Opposite Party is refusing to admit manufacturing defect. As a person buying such a car by spending more than a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- is not expected to spend more from his pocket, for the reason of malfunctioning of the products manufactured by the 3rd Opposite Party and supplied and maintained by the 3rd Opposite Party and similarly authorized dealers of the 3rd Opposite Party. The e-mail sent by the 1st Opposite Party that the supply pump will be sent to the manufacturer and an opinion will be sought as to why such a problem occurs will show that there was a manufacturing defect due to which alone there had been a problem in the supply pump and which prompted the 1st Opposite Party to write such a e-mail and suddenly when they found that the product supplied manufactured by the 3rd Opposite Party is defective. The vehicle manufactured by the 3rd Opposite Party and supplied by the 1st Opposite Party is defective and that the service rendered by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party was dealers of the 3rd Opposite Party is deficient and therefore all are clearly liable to compensate the Complainant. The car is now parked in front of the house of the Complainant and due to the deficient manufacturing of Innova Car within 1,00,000/- k.ms., the car has become unusable and it is stationed outside the house of the Complainant. Hence the Complaint filed this Complaint to replace the vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle and other expenses met for the repair with costs.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The subject vehicle was originally purchased only from the 2nd Opposite Party on 02.09.2010. It is true that earlier the said vehicle was brought to the first Opposite Party’s service centre for periodical service and there were no complaints. The first Opposite Party states that there was some problem due to fault of the cylinder in the engine. However the same was attended by the other dealer namely the 2nd Opposite Party and the Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.85,000/- towards the charges. It is submitted further that the Complainant could not get the warranty coverage for the replacement of the cylinder in the engine as the Complainant had already approached the unauthorized local mechanic shop for repair work which disentitled him from availing warranty as per the Toyota norms. The Complainant towed and brought the vehicle 0n 06.02.2012 to the 1st Opposite Party reported that he was unable to start the vehicle. He did not give previous problem in the vehicle. The service team diagnosed the vehicle after dismantling the engine with the consent of the Complainant low pressure in the pump. They also suspected fault in the injectors and in the supply pump. Then this Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the repair work to be carried out i.e fuel pump needs to be overhauled and estimated the cost of the repair charge of Rs.35,000/- and requested for the approval of the Complainant. This Opposite Party finally informed the Complainant either to approve the estimate or take back the vehicle on 28.03.2012. The Complainant did not reveal when the vehicle was sold to him. The vehicle was left in the work shop by the previous owner Mr.Indiran. The fact of purchase of the vehicle by the Complainant came to the knowledge of the Opposite Party only on receipt of the legal notice. Having the Complainant purchased the secondhand car he has no locus standi for a new innova car. Mr.Indiran purchased only from the 2nd Opposite Party and not from the Opposite Party. This Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The subject vehicle was purchased from the 2nd Opposite Party on 31.08.2010 by one Mr.Indiran, the original owner. That from the date of purchase the said vehicle was brought to the 2nd Opposite Party’s service centre for periodical service and there were no complaints by the original owner Mr.T.Indiran. The 2nd Opposite Party states that there was some problem due to fault of the Fuel Injector Assembly which was due to use of substandard, impure, adulterated fuel and the original owner Mr. T.Indran was informed of the non coverage of warranty due to this factor and thereafter Mr.Indiran accepted the same and on his request the vehicle was repaired and he also paid the charges for such repair without demur. The subject vehicle was not properly maintained and the vehicle was not handled by the person from recognized/authorized work shop and hence warranty cannot be applied. The original owner Mr.T.Indran has malafidely sold the vehicle to the Complainant suppressing the material facts regarding the condition of the vehicle. The Complainant has no locus standi to ask for new Innova Car when he had purchased the car as second hand, which was in workshop for repair. The allegation that it is only due to the manufacturing defect and supplied only defective material namely four fuel injectors/cylinders, the vehicle has come to a standstill and the Opposite Party liability is denied and it may be observed that the subject vehicle had trouble free running for more than fifty thousand kilometers after the replacement of the diesel fuel injectors. The Opposite Parties are not liable to pay any amounts whatsoever and the entire Complaint filed is frivolous and false.
4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3rd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
This Opposite Party/Manufacturer denies every averment made in the Complaint. This Opposite Party is one of the leading & prominent manufactures of cars in the Auto Mobile Industry which is known for its quality and reliability. Dealers/Opposite Parties 1 & 2 purchase vehicle and parts from this Opposite Party on payment of full prize and inturn they sell at their end to their customers. It is clear beyond doubt that the impugned vehicle had met with accident on several occasions and there are instances of severe frontal collisions, wherein most of the parts related to engine were damaged. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 while servicing the vehicle, they found that the vehicle was repaired by the unauthorized person other than Toyota outlet. When the 1st Opposite Party opened the supply pump for repair there appears two washers in the place of one and wrong local oil seals were used, evidencing repair by the unauthorized personnel. Therefore no question of repairing the vehicle under warranty arises. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and hence this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
5.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
6.POINT:1
On behalf of the Complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 marked, on behalf of the 1st Opposite Party Ex.B1 to Ex.B22 marked on 01.07.2015 and on behalf 2nd Opposite Party Ex.B23 to Ex.B41 marked on 18.08.2015. The 3rd Opposite Party filed proof affidavit with 3 documents on 21.09.2015 and the said 3 documents inadvertently marked as Ex.B43 to Ex.B45 instead of Ex.B42 to Ex.B44. Now in this order the said 3 documents marked are remarked as Ex.B42 to Ex.B44. The test report of the vehicle is marked as Ex.C1.
7. The admitted facts are that one Mr.Indiran originally purchased the Innova Car from the 2nd Opposite Party on 31.08.2010 bearing Registration No.TN 05 AE 7686 and he was using the said car for some period and later he sold the vehicle to this Complainant and took delivery of the vehicle for a consideration of Rs.8,10,000/- from the said Indiran on 30.01.2012 under Ex.A2 delivery note and thereafter the Complainant was using the vehicle and the said vehicle was manufactured by the 3rd Opposite Party and the 1st & 2nd Opposite Party are the authorized dealer cum service providers of the 3rd Opposite Party, the 1st owner Indiran and the Complainant left the vehicle with the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party on several occasions for service and to rectify the defects. Ex.A1 is the RC Book of the vehicle and Ex.A3 is the warranty of the vehicle.
8. The Complainant contended that his previous owner and himself left the vehicle for service with the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties on several occasions and also at the Lanson Toyato Service Provider at Pallikaranai replaced the clutch plate for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and however the vehicle failed to start on 06.02.2012 and the Complainant informed to the 1st Opposite Party and he informed on 13.02.2012 that there is no pressure in the supply pump and the Opposite Party was unable to diagnosis actual problem and however he gave an estimate for Rs.3,85,000/- and therefore the vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect and failed to service the vehicle and therefore the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 committed Deficiency in Service.
9. The Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant left the vehicle with unauthorized service centre and they have tampered the parts and not properly serviced the vehicle and in view of the unauthorized service the warranty will not apply to the Complainant and further due to the unauthorized local mechanic attended the repairs in the vehicle, whole problem arose and as such the 1st & 2nd Opposite Party provided proper service to the vehicle and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
10. The Complainant denies that the local mechanic attended the vehicle at any point of time. Further Ex.B3 to Ex.B13 invoices issued by the 1st Opposite Party and Ex.B25 to Ex.B41 invoices issued by the 2nd Opposite Party and further Ex.A10 (after filing of this Complaint) invoices establishes that the Complainant and his 1st owner are always in the habit of leaving the vehicle for repair only with the authorized service centre . Absolutely there is no evidence to prove the contention of the Opposite Parties that the vehicle was repaired by the local mechanic. Therefore the contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant left the vehicle for repair with the local mechanic is rejected.
11. Ex.A3 & Ex.B43 are the warranty card of the vehicle filed by the Complainant and the 3rd Opposite Party respectively. The warranty covers for a period of 36 months or 10,000 Kms, whichever comes first. Further as per the terms of the warranty, the warranty coverage is fully transferable to the subsequent owners only for the unexpired portion of the period. On 31.03.2011 the vehicle ran 41,000 Kms only. Therefore, the vehicle was covered under the warranty and the warranty benefit is very well available to this Complainant also.
12. The 1st Opposite Party admitted in the written version that the vehicle was brought to him on 06.02.2012 with the report that he was not able to start the vehicle. The 1st Opposite Party gave estimate for a sum of Rs.35,000/- to carry out repair work that the fuel pump needs to be overhauled for which he has sought the approval of the Complainant. When the warranty covered on the date 06.02.2012, the 1st Opposite Party could have repaired the vehicle without seeking any approval from the Complainant. Further on the application of the Complainant the vehicle was tested by the Department of Auto Mobile Engineering of Anna University. They gave report stating that the vehicle was tested on various conditions the vehicle is having noise from turbo charger and pulling left side when the vehicle moves beyond 100 Km/hr and the clutch is too hard while engaging and disengaging. This defect was not stated by the 1st & 2nd Opposite Party to the Complainant and also they have not rectified these defects even though they have attended the vehicle on various occasions. Therefore the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not properly serviced the vehicle and thereby we hold that they have committed Deficiency in Service.
13. The Complainant himself marked as Ex.A10 series invoices shows that the vehicle was serviced by the innova service centers at various places after filing of the Complaint and now he is using the vehicle and the vehicle is in working condition. As per Ex.A10 series the Complainant spent Rs.30,893/- to rectify the vehicle to a running condition. Since, now that the vehicle is running, the vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect has not been proved by the Complainant. However the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties are the authorized service centers of the 3rd Opposite Party and therefore for the improper service of the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties, the 3rd Opposite Party is also liable and hence we hold that the 3rd Opposite Party also committed Deficiency in Service.
14. POINT:2
Since the vehicle was not properly serviced or failed to be serviced under the warranty, the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for which the Complainant is entitled for compensation. Further under Ex.A10 series the Complainant spent about a sum of Rs.30,893/- to bring the vehicle in a running condition and for the said amount the Complainant is entitled for the same. Considering the circumstances of the case the Opposite Parties can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the Complainant and apart from that a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expense.
In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly or severally ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for mental agony to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,893/- (Rupees thirty thousand eight hundred and ninety three only) towards the vehicle repair charges besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06th day of May 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated NIL R.C.Book
Ex.A2 dated NIL Delivered Notice
Ex.A3 dated NIL Warranty Booklet
Ex.A4 dated NIL Bills (Nos)
Ex.A5 dated NIL E-Mail Print outs
Ex.A6 dated 06.02.2012 Check slip issued by the 2nd respondent for
service of the vehicle
Ex.A7 dated NIL Notice issued on 18.04.2012
Ex.A8 dated NIL Reply notice issued on 10.05.2012
Ex.A9 dated NIL Notice to the 2nd respondent
Ex.A10 dated 20.02.2013 Recent Service Bill
Ex.A11 dated 15.10.2012 Repairs Bill
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ex.C1 dated 03.03.2014 Report of the Anna University, Institute of Technology Campus Chromepet, Chennai -44, |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Department of Automobile Engineering
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.