Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/50/2022

Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Rajiv Jakhar - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Kahlon Adv.

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	50 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	11.05.2022
Date of Decision	:	30.11.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, through its Authorized Signatory (Mr.Vinay Bhagawan) having its Registered Office at Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, District Ramnagar, Karnataka 562109

 

…Appellant/OP No.1

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Mr.Rajiv Jakhar s/o Sh.Harish Chander, r/o VPO Maujgarh, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab

….Respondent No.1/complainant

2. M/s EM PEE Motors Limited, Plot No.177 H, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002

….Respondent No.2/OP No.2 and 3

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER. MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

  

Present:-         Sh. Gurpreet Singh Kahlon, Advocate for the appellant.

                Sh.Raghav Goel, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                Sh.S.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent no.2.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party no.1, as it is aggrieved of the order dated 14.01.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby consumer complaint bearing no.253 of 2018 filed by respondent no.1 was  allowed and the appellant and respondent no.2 were directed to replace the defective engine assembly of the vehicle of respondent no.1 with a new one and to replace/repair defective parts in the vehicle of respondent no.1 to make it roadworthy and also to pay compensation and cost of litigation to him.

2.         Following facts narrated by the complainant in his complaint were noted down by the District Commission in the order impugned:-

 

“…… Concisely put, the complainant purchased a New Toyota Corolla Altis Car from OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, in July, 2015 for an amount of Rs.17,78,024.46 (Ann.C-1), carrying warranty of 3 years or 1,00,000 kms. whichever is earlier from the date of purchase and got it registered vide Regd. No.PB-22-M-7374 (Ann.C-2).  It is averred that the complainant got the car in question serviced from the authorized service station of the OPs well in time.  It is also averred that on 23.2.2017 when the complainant was driving the car in question from Jaipur to Abohar, the speedometer of the car indicted “Engine Oil Low”, so the complainant packed the car and sought assistance of OP No.3.  The vehicle was taken to OP No.3 on 25.2.2017, who found that the engine oil remaining the car was only 1.5 lts., so he added 2.4 liters of engine oil to complete the requirement of 3.9  lts of engine oil in the car and further added another extra top up of 400 ML and then the car was retuned on 8.3.2017 (Ann.C-4).  It is further averred that the complainant got the third paid service of the car done from OP N0o.3 on 26.6.2017 when it completed 29876 kms and in the Invoice it is ment9ioned that the Engine Oil was checked & found to be OK (Ann.C-5).  However, on 25.9.2017, the car again indicated the sign “Engine Oil Low”, so the car was again taken to OP No.3, who changed its Vacuum Pump free of cost in order to resolve the said problem (Ann.C-6).  It is stated that when the complainant sent his vehicle for fourth service when it completed 39,522 kms,  he was shocked to notice that OP No.3 in its observation mentioned that on drainage of the engine oil, it was found to be 2.5 ltres and thereafter they added another 1.4 ltres to complete the minimum requirement of altis car have 3.9 Lts. Engine oil (Ann.C-7).  It is also stated that the time & again problem of “Engine Oil Low” in the car in question, despite getting it timely serviced and filling of required engine oil, shows a defect in the engine of the car.  As such, the complainant sent legal notices to OPs No.1 & 2 (Ann.C-8 to C-10).  It is submitted that less engine oil problem was again noticed on further service of the car on 22.3.2018 with OP No.3 when it covered only 45698 kms. i.e. on running 5000 kms after the third service at 39522 kms. (Ann.C-11).  It is also submitted that despite legal notice as well as intimation on service helpline of OP No.1, no official/engineer of the OP Company checked/inspected the vehicle in question to set right the defect, but still the OPs sent email dated 4.4.2018 stating that as per their investigation done by technical team for abnormal oil consumption issue, it reveals no manufacturing defect in the car and recommended to get the vehicle inspected after every 5000/- kms. or 6 months whichever is earlier (Ann.C-12).  It is pleaded that the OPs have fleeced the complainant by selling the low quality engine as the engine is defective and showed the abnormal oil consumption defect in less than 18 months of its purchase and thus amounting to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service.  .…..”

 

3.         Replies were filed by the opposite parties,  which were noted down by the District Commission in the order impugned as under:-

“…. The OP No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1.  It is stated that Ann.C-12 has been sent by OPs No.2 & 3 and from its bare perusal, it shows that the alleged Engine Oil Consumption is due to the rash & negligent driving of the complainant himself and not due to any manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant.  It is stated that vide email dated 4.4.2018, it has been specifically intimated that the engine oil consumption depends on driving at high engine speed, driving with heavy load, driving while accelerating and de-accelerating frequently, driving leaving the engine idle for a long time and driving frequently through heavy traffic and others. It is also stated that as per invoice dated 26.6.2017, it has been stated that Engine Oil Consumption was checked and the same was found OK. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was duly inspected and it was found that there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OPs No.2 & 3 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case as matter of record, stated that there was no defect what to talk of manufacturing defect, because the problem had occurred due to normal wear & tear of the use of vehicle in question and the question of low engine oil is not a manufacturing defect, hence the complainant has no case because Engine oil never comes to at a lower point and it remains in level as per terms.  It is submitted that there was no question of less engine oil of the car, as alleged by the complainant, as it is a general job. It is denied that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect.  Pleading no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3, it is prayed that the complaint qua them be dismissed.    ..….”

4.         The District Commission after hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the documents on record and also the expert Report (Memo No.PEC/MED/1851, dated 17.12.2018), prepared & submitted by the Officer of Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University),  allowed the complaint in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal.
5.         We have heard the contesting parties and scanned the material available on the record.
6.         It may be stated here that we have requisitioned the record of the District Commission and have also gone through the contents of the order impugned very carefully and found that the findings of the District  Commission  qua replacement of engine assembly of the vehicle in question with new one and carrying out necessary repair or replacement of the defective parts, are based on the Expert Report (Memo No.PEC/MED/1851, dated 17.12.2018), prepared & submitted by the Officer of Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Sector 12, Chandigarh, consisting of experts in the field i.e. Prof. Ankit Yadav, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engg. Deptt. PEC Chandigarh, Dr.Sushant Samir, Professor & Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I. who had inspected the vehicle in question and opined that  there is a problem of engine oil being low after travelling for 2000 Kms, which is not desirable and needs to be rectified. There is nothing on record either before the District Commission or before this Commission, having been placed by the appellant, wherefrom, the findings of the District Commission qua replacement of engine assembly of the vehicle in question with new one and carrying out necessary repair or replacement of the defective parts can be reversed. In order to prove its case, the appellant was required of to place on record any evidence, contrary to the expert report referred to above, but it miserably failed to do so. Thus, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the expert report, the appellant has failed to make out its case.
7.         Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, allowing the consumer complaint, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting interference of this Commission. Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

30.11.2022

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Rg.