Haryana

StateCommission

A/147/2016

M.M.SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MFG TOYOTA - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.DHULL

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    147 of 2016

Date of Institution:    17.02.2016

Date of Decision :     20.09.2016

 

M.M. Sharma s/o Sh. Suresh Sharma, Resident of 42, Karanpuri, behind B.D. Flour Mill, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      MGF Toyota, Gurgaon having its office at No.2 & 3, Silverton Tower, Ground Floor, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-50, Gurgaon through its Manager/authorised person. 

2.      Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited having its office at Floor No.10,17 & 18, Canberra Block, UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, KG Halli, Shanthala Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka through its Director/Manager/authorised person.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated December 1^st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.                On April 26^th, 2013, M.M. Sharma-complainant/appellant, purchased a car-Toyota Etios-V, bearing Registration No.UK-07-AX-3642, from MGF Toyota, Gurgaon-Opposite Party/respondent No.1, that is, the authorised dealer of Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited-Opposite Party/respondent No.2 (the manufacturer).

3.                The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the opposite party No.1 delivered an old and defective car which had already run 70 kilometers. It was alleged that the car had some strange spots over its body and the Teflon Coating on the car was not proper. He approached the opposite parties to replace the car with a new one but to no effect.

4.                At the stage of motion hearing, the District Forum dismissed the complaint being barred by limitation as well having been filed after the period of warranty. 

5.                Indisputably, the car was purchased on 26^th April, 2013 and the instant complaint was filed on 17^th November, 2015.  Thus, after the warranty period, the complainant could not say that the car was defective. Besides, the complaint was beyond the period of limitation as provided in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There was no prayer on behalf of the complainant seeking condonation of delay.  Even otherwise, the Teflon Coating is done as anti-rust coating on the surface/body of the car. Seeking grievance after more than two years cannot be considered as bonafide.  Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

6.                Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 20.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL