By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant purchased the vehicle from the second opposite party on 18/09/2018 which is manufactured by the first opposite party. The vehicle is Toyota Etios Liva VD, with chassis No. MBJK49BT700108715 and Engine No.IND-IA 82199 which is registered as KL-55Z-0061. The complainant submitted that the first opposite party is well known manufacturer of the vehicles and the second opposite party convinced that there will not be any defect to the vehicle and believing the same the complainant purchased the vehicle for Rs.8,31,145/-.
2. The complainant availed regular services to the vehicle and on after 3rd free service, the complainant found that there is abnormal oil consumption to the vehicle. It was noted that 5000 kilometers covered during that period. Then the vehicle was taken to the second opposite party and it was full top up the oil. The complainant submitted that the vehicle is under observation and it can be verified during the next service. Then the fourth service occasion it was noted that the vehicle had covered 5000 more kilometers and the vehicle had consumed 1.6 litter oil. Then the complainant requested to rectify the defect but the opposite party did not heed the request. Thereafter during 4th service also the complainant approached the opposite party with same complaint and then also the oil was top up.
3. The complainant submit that he approached the second opposite party believing the version of opposite parties regarding the quality of vehicle but due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle , within short period of use the vehicle became defective. The complainant is not able to utilize the vehicle properly and he caused heavy financial loss and he is not able to even dispose the vehicle. The complainant alleges there are several complaints against the opposite party with the similar issues. The prayer of the complainant is that to replace the vehicle with defect free one or to refund Rs.8,31,145/- along with Rs.50,000/- as cost and compensation .
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the second opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party filed version but which is beyond the statutory time limit and so the first opposite party set exparte. The first opposite party was served notice on 07/06/2022 as per the acknowledgment and the opposite party filed version only on 28/09/2022.
5. The second opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The second opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the second opposite party on 18/09/2018. The vehicle Toyota Etios Liva VD and registration number is KL-55Z-0061. It is also admitted that the first opposite party is well-known manufacturer of the vehicle and which is approved by the worldwide. But the allegation that the opposite party men made believe the complainant and accordingly purchased the vehicle from the opposite party is baseless.
6. The opposite party denied the allegation that the complainant availed regular services and on third service after covering 5000 kilometers it was found oil shortage. It is usual to decrease oil while running the vehicle due to consumption of oil. The second opposite party had top up the same. But the allegation that the opposite party said to him that the vehicle is in observation and it will be considered his grievance after covering next 5000 kilometers is baseless. The allegation that during the fourth service after coving 5000 kilometers again It was found Consumption 1.6 litter of oil and requested to rectify the defect several occasions but not heed to the same that the complainant fed-up due to the response of the opposite party and thereafter on fourth service after covering 5000 kilometers again the oil was top up is false and baseless. It is submitted that there is in the owner’s manual the refilling of engine oil on every 5000 kilometers or 3000 miles or 6 months and there is also averment in the manual that “ to prevent serious engine damages check engine oil regular basis” and the same was made aware the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no defect to the vehicle as submitted by the complainant.
7. The opposite party submitted that they never convinced the complainant that the first opposite party is well-known manufacturer of the vehicle. The opposite party specifically denied the defect to the engine or to the vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant realizing the merit of the vehicle among in the present category of the vehicle that the minimum maintenance expenses and maximum mileages, the complainant purchased the vehicle. All the other allegations that the vehicle became defective within short span of use is not correct. The complainant is trying to squeeze the money from the opposite party illegally. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. The complainant and second opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is tax invoice dated 01/03/2021/005TXW 20-08687(Cash) - the first top up. Ext. A2 is copy tax invoice dated 25/08/2021 /TXW 21-02927 (cash)– first paid service. Ext. A3 is tax invoice dated 14/01/2022 – TXW 21- 07987 (cash) second top up. Ext. A4 is tax invoice dated 08/07/2022- TXW 22-03288 (cash) second paid service. Ext. A5 is Tax invoice dated 02/11/2022 – TXW 22-07304 (cash) 3rd top up. Ext. A6 is copy of letter regarding Toyota extended warranty program up to 17th September 2023 or 1,00,000 kilometers dated 18/09/2018. The documents on the side of second opposite party marked as Ext. B1 series which is relevant pages from the owner’s manual of the vehicle. The commissioner’s report marked as Ext. C1.
9. Heard complainant and second opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether the vehicle has got manufacturing defect?
2) Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3) Relief and cost
10. Point No.1 and 2
The second opposite party, the contesting opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant that the vehicle is defective one and has got complaint of excesses consumption of oil , but the opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the second opposite party which is manufactured by the first opposite party .
11. Now the question is whether the vehicle has got manufacturing defect or not. The complainant took out an expert commission and he examined the vehicle in presence of parties to the complaint. The commission is Mr. Baby Jospeh the AMVI, Sub RT office Tirur . The expert commissioner examined the vehicle in presence of Mr. Yonus, the work shop manager of Amana Toyota Tirur and the complainant. The report of the commissioner stands marked as Ext. C1. He submitted that “as per the technical information bulletin published by Toyota Ref. No. 214 TI 002 Dt 11/12/2020, normal value of engine oil consumption is 7000 kms/ liter. Based on service history of the vehicle the engine oil consumption of this vehicle was 5000 Kms /2.5 litters. The respondents have failed to rectify the problem reported by the complainant. From the above facts it is revealed that the vehicle is having some manufacturing defect”. The commissioner further reported that the vehicle has undergone the periodic maintenances as prescribed by the manufacturer at the authorized service centers in correct time. As per the service history of the vehicle, the vehicle reported for engine oil shortage on 01/03/2021 vide repair order No. GSA21-02002, 2.1 liter engine oil topped up, KM reading was 19689 KM.
12. The complainant produced Exits A1 to A5 which reveals the periodic service history of the vehicle which is correctly noted by the expert commissioner and has incorporated in the report. Ext. A6 is copy of extended warranty to the vehicle. So, that as per the report of expert commissioner and as per the documents produced by the complainant Ext. A1 to A6 correctly established the allegation of oil consumption as contended in the complaint. There is no contra evidence against the contention of the complainant. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 series regarding the replacement of engine oil. But the complainant submitted that the said averments in the Ext. B1 document is not applicable to the vehicle involved in this complaint. Ext B1 is in respect a car using top up carrier and repeated short trips less than 8 kilometers (5 miles) and outside temperature remains below freezing. We finds, there is merit in the contention of the complainant that the vehicle involved in this complaint was not using top up carrier or repeated short trips less than 8 km (5 mile) and outside temperature remains below freezing. Since there is no evidence on the part of opposite party to discredit the contention of the complainant the Commission accept the version of the complainant. The Commission holds that the vehicle has got manufacturing defect which is established through Exits A1 to A5 and Ext. C1, the expert commissioner’s report .
13. Pont No.3
The complainant submit that he purchased the vehicle for 8,31,145/- rupees.
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle with much expectation but found defective with in short span of time of use. Hence his submission is that he cannot use the vehicle properly and it is difficult to sell the defective vehicle. Hence his prayer is to replace the vehicle with a defect free one or to refund 8,31,145 rupees. He also prays for the cost of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party. Since we already found that the vehicle involved in this complaint is defective one and it was taken before the second opposite party, the authorized service centre of the first opposite arty they could not rectify the defect duly. Hence it is proper to direct the opposite party to replace the vehicle or to refund Rs.8,31,145 to the complainant. It appears that the complainant was in difficulty and caused mental agony due to the defective vehicle which the complainant purchased with great expectations. Hence the complainant is entitled for reasonable amount as compensation and we allow Rs.50,000/-as compensation to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled cost of the proceedings and towards the same, the Commission allowed Rs.10,000/-.
12. The first opposite party is being the manufacturer of the defective vehicle involved in this complaint and the second opposite party is being the dealer of the first opposite party are jointly and severely liable to redress the grievance of the complainant .
In the light o above facts and circumstances, the Commission is pleased to allow the complaint as follows:
- The opposite parties are directed to replace the defective vehicle with a defect free vehicle of the same specification and if not able to do so the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.8,31,145/- (Rupees Eight lakh thirty-one thousand one hundred forty-five only) to the complainant. In case the opposite parties refund the cost of the vehicle, the opposite party is allowed to take back the vehicle at their own cost.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only )as compensation on account of defective service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and there by caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate 9% per annum for the entire cost of the vehicle, compensation and cost of the proceedings till date of payment .
Dated this 31st day of July , 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A6
Ext.A1: Tax invoice dated 01/03/2021/005TXW 20-08687(Cash) - the first top up.
Ext.A2: Tax invoice dated 25/08/2021 /TXW 21-02927 (cash)– first paid service.
Ext A3: Tax invoice dated 14/01/2022 – TXW 21- 07987 (cash ) second top up .
Ext A4: Tax invoice dated 08/07/2022- TXW 22-03288 (cash ) second paid service .
Ext A5: Tax invoice dated 02/11/2022 – TXW 22-07304 (cash ) 3rd top up .
Ext A6: Letter regarding Toyota extended warranty program up to 17th September
2023 or 1,00,000 kilometers dated 18/09/2018.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1
Ext.B1: Owner’s manual of the vehicle.
Ext.C1: commissioner’s report
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
