Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/255/2018

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Shaman Jain - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Bansal

04 Oct 2018

ORDER

TATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	255 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	01.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	04.10.2018

 

1. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bidadi, Ramanagara Distt., Karnataka, through its authorized signatory.

2. Em Pee Motors Ltd., Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

…….Appellants.

Versus

 

1. Mr. Shaman Jain S/o K. C. Jain, R/o House No.3126, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

2. SBI GIC Ltd., 101-103, Natraj Junction of Western Highway and Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400069, through its authorized signatory.

                                                                                        ...Respondents.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986  against   order dated 23.08.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.655/2017

 

                       

 BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. S. R. Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER  PADMA  PANDEY,  MEMBER

                   Appellant/opposite parties No.1 & 2  have filed this appeal against order dated 23.8.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide  which, the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant was partly allowed and the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were directed to refund Rs.53,208/- to the complainant, which had to be spent unnecessarily within warranty period for the repairs of damages caused to the vehicle, in question, due to its faulty design and it was also ordered that the complainant now could not get the benefit of NCB of his new car for the subsequent years. Opposite Party No.3 was also directed to refund Rs.2,000/- to the complainant, which was charged in excess from him, towards processing fee for two different claims instead of one. All the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.15,000/- each as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him, along with Rs.10,000/- each as cost of litigation.

2.                Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that he had purchased an automatic model of Toyota Innova Crysta 2.8Z car from Opposite Party No.1 on 25.05.2016 and got the same bumper to bumper insured with Opposite Party No.3 vide Policy, Annexure C-2. On 08.11.2016, the complainant experienced jerk & heavy vibration while reversing the car, due to which, it got uncontrollable and its rear side hit the gate. On receiving information, Opposite Party No.1 towed the vehicle to its workshop and after its inspection, the complainant was informed that a rat had entered the engine and majorly cut and damaged the engine wiring. The complainant requested Opposite Party No.1 to repair the vehicle free of cost as it was under warranty period. It was alleged that entry of a rat in the engine was because of its defective design. Request of the complainant did not yield any result. The total expenses for getting the rear bumper repaired and engine wiring replaced was Rs.53,208/-. Besides this, the complainant also paid Rs.4,000/- to Opposite Party No.3 towards process fee for the aforesaid claim. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum. 

3.                Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed a joint reply, wherein it was specifically stated that there was no defect or manufacturing defect in the car as the problem had occurred due to entering of a rat in the engine of the vehicle causing damage to wiring and other parts. It was stated that no blame could be attributed to opposite parties no.1 & 2 because entering of a rat in the engine was beyond the control of anybody else.  The matter was reported to Opposite Party No.3 (Insurances Company) and the job was done on payment basis and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant.

4.                Opposite Party No.3 filed in its reply wherein while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it was stated that the total cost of repair was Rs.53,208/-, out of which, cost of bumper repair was Rs.8,835/- and cost of engine wiring repair was Rs.44,373/-. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 processed both the claims of the complainant and made payment to the repairer i.e. Opposite Party No.1.

5.            All the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, partly allowed the complaint. When forming above opinion, the Forum, in Paras 10 to 12, observed as under;

“10. The total expenses of Rs.53,208/- for getting the rear bumper repaired and for getting the engine wiring replaced has not been disputed before us at all. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was received by Opposite Party No.1 in jerky condition and the damage to the engine wiring of the vehicle was done by the rat. Inspite of the fact that both the damages to the vehicle (to engine as well as to rear bumper of vehicle) were caused due to same reason and at same time, yet Opposite Party No.3 (Insurance Company) covered it in two different claims and the Complainant had to foot the processing charges of two insurance claims instead of one. The receipt of Rs.4,000/- paid to the Opposite Party No.3 accounts for Annexure C-7. It is thus, legitimately proved that the Opposite Party No.3 had illegally charged Rs.2,000/- twice from the Complainant (under the heading Excess Clause as per IMT 22). Since for the damage in one go, the Opposite Party No.3 divided the same into two parts and charged the process fee twice, to our mind, the Opposite Party No.3 is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the said excess amount charged to the Complainant.

11. The second question to be determined in this case is as to whether the vehicle in question suffers from defective manufacturing design or not? The answer to this is in affirmative.

12. It is admitted by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their written version that the problem had occurred due to rat entry in the engine of the vehicle in question which caused damage to the wiring and other parts that too within the warranty period. The Complainant has thus certainly suffered at the hands of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 due to the entry of rat in the engine of the vehicle which became the cause of accident and damage to the wires and other parts of the vehicle. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have contended that the entry of rate is not due to any manufacturing defect and is beyond their control. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the design, specification and requirement of the vehicle shall be of that kind that apt measures must have been taken by the Manufacturing Company to stop the entry of any foreign element/ rodents/ rats etc. in the vehicle. The Complainant must have trusted the Brand and thus, spent his hard earned money to purchase the vehicle to make himself and his family comfortable, but in the present case he had to face lot of harassment and inconvenience owing to defective manufacturing design of the car. Thus, in our concerted onion, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also guilty of deficiency in service which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation.”

6.                After going through the evidence on record and submissions of the Counsel for the appellants, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

7.                Admittedly, the cause of accident and damage to the wires and other parts of the vehicle occurred due to entering of rat in the engine of the vehicle, in question. The biggest concern from rodents is the wiring issues, which can further cause short circuit in the vehicle and damage to the engine and other parts of the vehicle. In the instant case, damage due to entering of a rat could have been avoided, in case, the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 would have taken all due care and caution, qua the design, specification of the vehicle, in question. However, the appropriate measures were not taken by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2, which were required of them, to stop entry of any foreign element/rodents/rats etc. in the vehicle. Further, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Forum that for the damage, which occurred in one go due to entering of rat in the engine of the vehicle, in question, which resulted into accident and damage to the wiring and other parts of the vehicle, Opposite Party No.3 could not divide the loss/damage occurred into two parts and, therefore, charging process fee twice amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.3. The Forum rightly held liable and directed Opposite Party No.3 to refund the excess amount charged to the complainant. Once, it was held that the loss/damage, occurred on account of entry of a rat in the vehicle, in question, due to deficiency in rendering service on the part of appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2, the Forum, rightly held the appellants/opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and opposite parties No.3, jointly and severally, to refund the amount of Rs.53,208/- to the complainant, which had to be spent within warranty period for the repairs of the damage caused to the vehicle, in question.

8.                In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

9.                No other point was raised by the Counsel for the appellants.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

11.              Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12.              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

04.10.2018.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad