Orissa

Jajapur

CC/25/2019

Anita Manjari Pallai. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Field Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Srikant Mohapatra,Seetikanta Das

24 Feb 2021

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:   1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President,

                                                                          2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                 

                                          Dated the 24^th day of  February,2021                                                   

                                                          C.C.Case No. 25  of 2019

  Anita Manjari Pallei ,W./O Srikanta  Das,

At.Mallikpur, P.O/P.S.Binjharpur

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                                             …………….. Complainant.                          

                        (Versus)

1. Manager,Field Motor Private Ltd.
2. Service Manager,Field Motor Private Ltd, Both 1 and 2 are

Plot No.2514 N.H.%,Telenga Pentha,  Cuttack.

3.   Managing Director,Toyota, Field Motor Pvt. Ltd, Regd. Office

At. 2^nd floor, F-7 Block B-1 Mohan Co-op Ind-Estate.

                     

4. Branch Manager, Canara Bank , At.Goudsahi  Branch ,P.O/P.S. Binjharpur

Disist.Jajpur.

               

                                                                                                                                                     ……………. O.P. Parties.                               .

For the Complainant:                               Sri Srikanta Mohapatra, Seetikantha Das,  Advocates  .

For the Opp.Parties : no.1 and 2             Sk Qamerudin , Advocates.  

For the Opp.Parties No.3 and 4                None.  

                                                                                                                                   Date of order:  24 .02. 2021.

MISS  SMITA  RAY ,  L A D Y    MEMBER   .

The petitioner has filed  the present dispute alleging not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice  on the part of the o.ps.

                The fact as per complaint petition as stated by the complainant are  that the petitioner purchased a car on 19^th May 2017 from O.p.no.1  by paying full consideration amount. After delivery of the vehicle the petitioner used the vehicle  himself and registered  the same as private use package but the vehicle got problem in excessive  fuel consumption for which   the petitioner informed the matter to  O.P.no.2 for necessary step in this regard. But inspite of visit by the petitioner to the show room of O.p.1 and 2 time and again for repairing and ultimately due to  engine problem with longs self start  the O.P.No.2 kept the vehicle and repair the same and all the transaction  paper filed with the complaint petition. The petitioner  visited the show room of O.p no.1 and 2  from 1.6.17  till filing of the present dispute for repairing the vehicle of the faulty  engine . That the above vehicle is now under the warranty and guarantee provision of O.P.no.1 and 2 as per page-303,305 of owners manual and warranty  booklet .  Subsequently the engine of the vehicle stopped on 22.2.19 on the road and the petitioner intimated the fact to O.P.no..2 and they took  the vehicle to their show room for repair and assured to repair the same with  utmost care.  After receipt of the vehicle the O.p.no.1  and 2 denied for warranty and guaranty  provision on the false plea taking the stand that the alleged defect only due to use of   low grade fuel. The petitioner is a lady and used to fill up  the  fuel at the  out let and she has no idea about the sanctity of the fuel  point.  The warranty card  of O.P.no. 1 and 2 does not reflect any special fuel  point to be used for the purpose of fueling the vehicle. The petitioner has no   negligence in fueling the vehicle rather the petitioner has taken l the utmost care to use the vehicle  for   private use .The petitioner has produced all the relevant documents for perusal of the commission to establish that she has visited the show room of op.1 and 2 for the purpose  of repairing of defect of the vehicle and on such occasion the op1 and 2 for repairs  the same but  O.P.no.1 and 2 refused to  repair  with vague plea for which there is  deficiency of  service  of  O.P.no.1  and 2. Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this commission with the prayer  to  that  O.P.no.1 and 2 may  directed to replace the vehicle i.e Toyota(  Etics) for manufacturing defect and compensation of Rs. 3 lakh for mental agony and financial loss.

                After receipt of  notice the O.p.no.1 and 2 appeared  through their learned advocate . The O.p.no.3 and 4 did  not choose to contest the dispute. Hence they have been set exparte dt.25.09.19  In the written version the O.p.no.1 and 2 have taken the stand that  the complainant prior to purchase and delivery of the vehicle in question had undertaken a test drive of the vehicle in question  and after being satisfied with the performance of the vehicle took delivery of the vehicle. Besides it is also the usual practice of the company that prior to delivery of the vehicle it had to undergo through a detailed pre-delivery inspection (PDI) and accordingly the vehicle in question was also underwent pre-delivery inspection by qualified, sincere and experienced technicians and the vehicle was found to be in a perfect running condition .

More over the complainant after running of the vehicle in question up to 15,000 K.M without any problem on 21.09.2017  has signed the customer satisfaction note and was quite happy with the performance of the vehicle in question. Thereafter on 22.02.2019 the vehicle was brought to the show room with the help of road side assistance for repairing and after inspection it came to the knowledge of the O.P that the complainant has used low grade adulterated fuel for which dirt has accumulated and clogging has occurred. The company’s warranty does not cover when adulterated fuel is used in a vehicle for which on 28.02.2019 the company issued warranty rejection letter to the complainant. On enquiry the O.Ps have also came to know that though the vehicle was purchased to be used as a private vehicle but  illegally the complainant used the vehicle for commercial purpose. Moreover it was also found that during inspection that due to rash and negligent driving oil sump has been damaged and oil was leaking . It would be pertinent to mention here that the vehicle in question (Etios) is one of the most sought after vehicle of the segment and due to its overall trouble free performance . All the vehicles of the same brand sold by the O.Ps to other customers have been performing smoothly without any problem and utmost satisfaction of the purchasers.

The defect in the vehicle and the damage has been done due to the negligence and carelessness of the complainant and his driver and due to use of adulterated fuel and the same under no stretch of imagination can be termed as manufacturing defect.  The complainant in order to make illegal gain and to escape from paying the repairing charges of the vehicle has field this false and concocted complainant .

Under the above circumstances the complainant petition is liable to be rejected with cost being devoid of any merit.

                On the date of hearing no step taken on behalf of O.ps .Advocate  for the petitioner is present. We heard the argument from the side of the petitioner.   After perusal  of the record and documents  in details it is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the above vehicle  from O.p.no.1 and 2  with consideration amount of Rs.7,45,784.00/- by availing  the financial  assistance of O.p.no.4.

During the period of warranty the petitioner  has availed all the free service provided by o.p.1 and 2 . As per  warranty guarantee  provision of  O.P.no.3 vide page no .303 to  305 of the  owner’s manual and warranty book let , the petitioner claimed before  O.p.no.1  and O.P.no.2  to rectify the   problem excessive fuel consumption   and engine problem along with  long  self  start which has been raised by the petitioner before O.P.no.1 and 2 for sot out but the O.P.no.1  and 2 neither sot out the problem for which at the time the petitioner plying the vehicle on the road , the engine got  stopped on 22.2.19 on the  road . The petitioner intimated the fact to O.P.no. 2 to remove the vehicle  to their showroom and the O.p.no.2 assured to repair the vehicle with utmost care , but  subsequently the O.P.no.1 and 2 taken the stand that  the complainant’s allegation regarding defect of the vehicle  does not cover with the company’s warranty  when adulterated fuel is used in the  vehicle   for which on 28.2.19 the company issued warranty rejection letter to the petitioner    and  on enquiry  the O.Ps  came to know that though the vehicle was purchased to be used as a private vehicle but   illegally  the petitioner used the vehicle for commercial  purpose . Moreover  it was also found that during inspection  due to rash and negligent driving oil sump has been damaged and oil was leaking . On the other  hand we verify the entire documents filed from the side of the O.Ps and complainant  that  the registration certificate   of vehicle showing that the vehicle was registered  for private use .There is no documents filed from the side of the O.ps which in  establish that the vehicle was used as  commercial purpose.

                Further on verification of  the job sheet of free services there is no remark from the side of the O.Ps shown that they have been advised  to the  petitioner regarding adulterated fuel  use in the vehicle as well as    use of the  vehicle  as  commercial purpose  so also the defect is due to and rash and negligent driving .

                The petitioner  also did not file any expart opinion which will  establish that the vehicle suffered  from manufacturing  defect as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2010(2)CPR-220-N.C

                As per observation above  , we are inclined to hold that there is  not only deficiency of service  but also unfair trade practice  on the part of the O.Ps  for providing  essential services during the warranty period of the  above vehicle.

Hence this Order

The O.P.no.1 and 2 are directed to repair the  vehicle   within 15 days  with fully satisfaction of the petitioner after receipt of the order, failing which the O.p no.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,000/- ( fifty thousand) as compensation to the petitioner . No cost.