Haryana

Ambala

CC/311/2018

Gagandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Toyota Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Anttal

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  311 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   24.09.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   29.11.2019.

                     

Gagandeep son of Shri Charanjeet Singh, resident of village Raipur, near Govt. School, PO Nalvi, Tehsil Shahbad (M), Distt. Kurukshetra (Haryana).

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

 

1. M/s Toyota Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Ram Nagar Taluk Bangalore-562109, Through its Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Castle Toyota (Authorized dealer Toyota Automobiles Pvt. Ltd) G.T.Road, Pragpur, Jalandhar (Pb.), through its Authorized Signatory.
3. M/s Toyota Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (Authorized Service Centre) Village Sadhopur, Opp. Springfield School, NH-22, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

    ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Smt. Gurpreet Singh Antal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri S.R.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 22.11.2018.

Shri G.S.Antal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the car in question with new one.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him alongwith litigation expenses.

 

382.  

 

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.2015, the complainant had purchased Toyoto Corolla ATLIS D4D G (F) colour white PCS bearing chassis No.MBJ53NEH0040049030815, engine No.IND1424321 model 8/3025 from the OP No.2 with three years warranty period, manufactured by OP No.1. After purchase of the car in question, he had spent about Rs.1,25,000/- on the registration of said car & the registration number of the car in question is HR-78B-0096. Since the date of purchase the complainant got it serviced regularly from the authorized service centre i.e OP No.3. On 07.08.2017, when he reached at Shahbad, suddenly the light in the gauge panel of the car in question started blinking due to low level of Engine Oil, at the millage of 28106 Kms. He contacted the OP No.3, who towed the car from Shahbad (M) to Ambala City to its service centre, and after topping the engine oil, delivered the car in question to him. On 07.03.2018, when the car had covered the millage of 36560 Kms, again in the gauge panel the light started blinking. The car was again towed from Shahbad to the Service Centre of OP No.3 at Ambala. The OP No.3 again topped up the level of engine oil and delivered the same to him. After the coverage of millage of 38000 Kms, the complainant got it serviced, but the problem remained the same. Regarding this problem, he sent an E-mail to the OP No.1, but no response was received from it. On 02.07.2018, when the car had covered the millage of 44123 kms, he took it to OP No.3 for inspection, after inspection it was found that the engine oil was again at low level by almost 30%, only after plying for 5500 KM. Inspite of change of the vacuum pump by the OP No.3, the problem remained the same. He again sent an E-mail dated 03.07.2018 to OP No.1, but received no reply from it. He again on 12.07.2018, e-mailed the OP No.1, who assured to reply within 24 hours, but it never respond even after expiry of nine days. Thereafter, he again sent an e-mail on 25.07.2018, regarding non-receipt of call from the OP No.1, but nothing was done by it. On 27.08.2018, complainant also served a legal notice upon the OPs but of no avail. There is a mechanical and manufacturing defect in the engine of his car, which needs replacement, which has not been done by the OP No.1. By selling a Toyota car, having mechanical & manufacturing defect, the OPs have committed deficiency in services. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.                 Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction; limitation and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the problem of low engine oil occurred after a gap of two years from the date of purchase of the car in question, which is a normal wear & tear and does not amount to any manufacturing defect. As per job card dated 02.07.2018, the engine oil was checked and topped up free of cost and thereafter, the complainant has not reported about it, hence no liability for deficiency in service what to talk of unfair trade practice etc. There was no manufacturing defect in the car as alleged by the complainant, so there is no question of replacement. The complainant came to it on 02.07.2018, for check-up of the car, when his car covered the millage of 5000 km and thereafter he never visited it. There is no deficiency in service on its part, thus the complaint filed against it may be dismissed with costs.

 3.               Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 before this Forum, therefore, OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.11.2018.

4.                Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability: jurisdiction and concealment of true & material facts. On merits, it is stated that the OP No.3 is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the car in question. The complainant had visited it on 07.08.2017, for service of his car, at the time when his car covered millage of 30000 KMs. At that time the cluster-meter was showing the engine oil level low. After service the car was delivered to the complainant upto his satisfaction. There is no mechanical or manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question as alleged by the complainant. The OP No.3 did not receive any legal notice as alleged. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service against it. Therefore, the complaint filed against it, may be dismissed with heavy costs.     

5.                Complainant tendered of his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri S.Rengarajan, General Manager Legal & Company Secretary, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, having its registered address at Plot No.1, Bidabi Industrial Area, Ramanagara District, Karnataka as Annexure OP1/A along with document Annexure OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. The learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Shri Neeraj Bali, M/s Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Globe Toyota), Village Sadhopur, Opposite Springfield School, NH-22, Baldev Nagar, Ambala as Annexure OP3/A & affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar, Group Technical Leader, M/s Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Globe Toyota), Village Sadhopur, Opposite Springfield School, NH-22, Baldev Nagar, Ambala as Annexure OP3/B alongwith document Annexure OP3/1 to OP3/28 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.    

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file & written arguments filed by learned counsel for OP No.3.

7.                From the record, it is borne out that complainant purchased the car in question on 19.11.2015. M/s Toyota Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., in its website has displayed that the warranty/basic coverage is of 36 months/36000 miles whichever occurs first, from the date of first use and covers all components other than normal wear and maintenance items. This warranty covers repairs and adjustments needed to correct defects in materials or workmanship or any other parts supplied by Toyota subject to exceptions. From the job-sheets dated 08.08.2017, Annexure C-4 to C-6, it is evident that on 07.08.2017, the car in question had covered the mileage of 28106 Kms and was having a problem of low level of Engine oil. In the job-sheet dated 10.03.2018, Annexure C-9, it is mentioned that the car had covered the millage of 36560 Kms and engine oil level low and top up done. From the job sheets, dated 02.07.2018, Annexure C-7 to C-8, it is evident that the Vacuum Pump and all non reusable part replaced and Engine Oil top up done, under warranty at the millage of 44123 Kms. From the job-sheets referred to above, it is quite clear that the defect of low level of engine oil occurred in the car in question after two years of its purchase, at the millage of 28106 Kms. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the said car, it would not have covered the millage of 28106 Kms upto 07.08.2017. Even there is no expert opinion regarding that there is some manufacturing defect in the car in question. Thus, the prayer made for replacement of the car is not tenable, hence rejected. However, this fact cannot be ignored that the defect of low level of engine oil occurred in the said car after two years of its purchase, at the millage of 28106 Kms i.e. within the warranty. As per the complainant, inspite of repeated repairs and replacement of defective parts, the OP No.3 failed to remove the defect of low level of engine oil. He had made the complaint in this regard to the OP No.1, but it had taken no action. No doubt in the reply dated 28.09.2018, Annexure C-1, to the notice dated 27.08.2018, the OP No.1 had stated that it instructed its dealer to resolve/redress the problem and the concerned dealer will contact/communicate the complainant. However, no cogent evidence has been produced by the OP No.1 & 3 to show that the problem of low level of engine oil has been rectified. It may be stated here that since the problem of low level of engine oil had occurred within warranty, therefore, it was the bounded duty of the OP No.1, being manufacturer and OP No.3, being the service centre, to rectify the problem of low level engine oil occurred in the car in question, either by repairing/replacing the defective part(s), free of costs. But they failed to perform their duty, which amounts to deficiency in services. As such, we are of the considered view that the OP No.3 is liable to rectify the defect of low level of engine oil either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s) of the car in question, free of cost. The OP No.1 is liable to provide the new part(s) needs to be replaced to the OP No.3, free of costs. So far as the complaint filed against the OP No.2 is concerned. It may be stated here that the complainant has stated that he had purchased the car in question from the OP No.2. Neither any specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against the OP No.2 nor it has been proved, therefore the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.2, and allow the same against OP No.1 and 3. They are directed as under:

1. The OP No.1 is directed to provide the new part(s) needs to be replaced to the OP No.3, free of costs.
2. The OP No.3 is directed to rectify the defect of low level of engine oil occurred in the car in question, either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of costs.
3. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him.
4. To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.1 and 3 are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 45 days, from the receipt of the certified

copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :29.11.2019.

                   (Vinod Kumar Sharma)                               (Neena Sandhu)

                        Member                                                  President