DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/192

Date of Institution : 14.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 04.07.2022

Sh. Rashpal Singh son of Sh. Kunan Singh resident of House No. B-220, New Amritsar, GT Road,  Amritsar.    …Complainant

Versus

1. M/s ANR Motors Private Limited through its Director, Daburji GT Road, Near Bye-Pass, Amritsar. 

2. M/s Toyota, Customer Service Division, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Limited, through its Director, Plot No. 1, Bidadi Industrial Area, PO Bidadi, Ramanagar District, Karnataka Pin-562109. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Mukhtaj Singh Verka Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sanjeet Singh counsel for the opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg  : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against M/s ANR Motors Private Limited, Amritsar and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased one Innova Crysta 2.4.Z Package 7 Seater from opposite party No. 1 who is authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2 vide invoice dated 25.11.2016f for consideration of Rs. 19,68,138.68 paise by raising bank loan from PNB. As per warranty card the vehicle is within the warranty period for three years from the date of purchase i.e. 25.11.2016. The certificate of registration issued to the complainant with No. PB02DB-2200. 

3. It is further alleged that he got the services of the vehicle done as per schedule of opposite parties. The complainant made complaint of bubbling of vehicle at the time of service and opposite party every time returned the vehicle with assurance that defect of bubbling is removed. But after few days the complainant faced the same problem. On 23.2.2018 the complainant lodged his complaint with opposite party No. 2 at their toll free number and complaint number was given to the complainant. Thereafter, representative of the opposite parties visited the complainant and inspection of the vehicle was done and assured that the claim will be settled shortly. But complainant was surprised to receive email from opposite party dated 28.2.2018 vide which they informed the complainant that their representative found out that vehicle alloy got bend due to external factor and there is no manufacture defect, hence will not be replaced under warranty and it can be replaced on paid basis. The opposite party not disclosed which alloy got bend or all the alloys are defective. In fact there is defect of suspension in the vehicle and it is duty of the opposite party to replace the defective part if it is not repaiable under warranty. But opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to replace the defective part of the vehicle free of costs and remove the defects in vehicle.  

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay litigation expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that after detailed investigation of vehicle of the complainant by technical team of opposite parties it was found that both front and rear wheel disc of the vehicle got bend and as such defect or damage to the vehicle is not due to manufacturing defect rather the same is due to external damage which is not covered within the terms and conditions of warranty so there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is not maintainable and complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 1. The complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as manufacturer of tyres of vehicle is a necessary party. Further, this Commission has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint as subject matter in dispute exceeds Rs. 20 lacs. 

5. On merits, it is denied that complainant made complaint of bubbling of vehicle to the answering opposite party. The claim of the complainant was rightly rejected because as per terms and conditions of warranty the damage done to any part of the vehicle by external source is not covered under the warranty. The complainant made a complaint about the bubbling of tyres on 21.2.2018 to opposite party No. 1 and before that there was no such complaint from the side of the complainant as and when vehicle was brought for its services. After more than a year the complainant was not getting such problem and it was in the month of February 2018 for the first time the complainant got the problem when the vehicle has been run more than 30000 Kms. The claim is not covered within the terms and conditions of warranty. Lastly, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. The opposite party No. 2 filed written version taking preliminary objections that the answering opposite party is not responsible for the acts and omissions of the opposite party No. 1. This Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try this case as registered office of the opposite party No. 2 is at Karnataka. Rest of the preliminary objections are the same as taken by the opposite party No. 1 in their written version so there is no need to repeat the same. 

7. On merits, no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the answering opposite party. Rest of the submissions mentioned on merits are the same as mentioned by the opposite party No. 1 in their written version so there is no need to repeat the same. However, lastly the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of sale invoice Ex.C-1, copy of warranty registration card Ex.C-2, copy of RC Ex.C-3, copy of email Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties   tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kapoor General Manager Ex.OP-1/A, affidavit of S. Rengarajan General Manager Ex.OP-2/A,  copy of owner's manual and warranty booklet Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of job sheet Ex.OP-1.2/2 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the complainant and opposite party No. 1. 

11. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased Innova Crysta from the opposite party No. 1 vide sale invoice Ex.C-1. It is also admitted that the complainant made a complaint of bubbling of vehicle to the opposite parties. It is also admitted that the representative of the opposite parties visited the complainant and inspected the vehicle. 

12. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties refused to replace the defective parts of the vehicle under the warranty free of costs on the ground that the vehicle alloy got bend due to external factor and it can be replaced on paid basis. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the defect in the vehicle is due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle which must be removed under warranty free of costs. 

13. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle expert evidence is must without which it cannot be proved that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

14. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi held in case titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

15. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

Both these citations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant has not filed any expert report so failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

15. In view of the above discussion and citations mentioned above, there is no merit in the  present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        4th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member