DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 02/03/2019
CC/48/2019
Mohan kumar,
S/o. Krishnankutty Nair,
Puliyakottil House,
Kadamboor, Ottapalam, Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s. A.V.Ratheesh & A.V.Arun)
Vs
- M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Pvt.Ltd.
10th Floor, Canberra Block,
UB City, 24 Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore.
Rep. by General Manager
- The Territory Manager (South 1),
Customer Relations Division,
M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Pvt.Ltd.
10th Floor, Canberra Block,
UB City, 24 Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore
- The Managing Director,
Amana Toyota,
VPK Motors Pvt.Ltd.,,
N.H.213, Mundur,
Poriyani (PO), Palakkad - Opposite parties
(OPs1&2 by Adv. M/s Vishnu Hari & P.K. Anita,
OP3 by Adv. M/s. A.A. Abdulla & Anjana A.)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Abridged essential pleadings of complainant are that he noticed rust under his car during 2015, which the O.P.s informed him was normal and can be washed away. During 2019, while driving with his family, a noise was heard. The 3rd O.P. informed him that the vehicle cannot be used any further without changing the chasis. Rusting of a luxury vehicle like this is a clear case of deficiency in service and on that premise this complaint is filed seeking replacement of chasis free of cost and for compensation and incidental reliefs.
- The opposite parties filed version contending in similar lines that the complainant had failed to carry out under body protection work. On 18/3/2015, the complainant made no complaints regarding rusting. The service department found that the under body coating normally provided by the opposite parties on all vehicles had already eroded away and the vehicle had been used in rash and negligent manner. Thus the fact was first informed to the opposite party during 45,000 km mandatory service. There after the complainant had, after driving the car for over 50,000 kms, understood the gravity of the problem and began unjustly claiming for free chasis replacement. They sought for dismissal of complaint.
- Upon going through the pleadings and the documents adduced as evidence by the parties it is found necessary to ascertain whether the complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore further Issues based on merits can be framed after considering the Issue of Bar of Limitation.
- The events are scheduled chronologically here under.
Sl.No. | Date | Document | Particulars | Remarks |
1 | 6/4/13 | A2 & other invoices | Date of purchase | |
2 | 18/3/15 | A1 & A2 | Reference to under body rust in many places | Driven 45,116 kms |
3 | 26/7/16 | A4 | Reference to worn tyres requiring replacement | Driven 70,914 kms |
4 | 20/2/18 | A7 | Underbody rust noted inter alia other complaints. | Driven 1,01,363 kms |
5 | 29/10/18 | A6 | Service required by customer alone carried out. | Driven 1,17,203 kms |
6 | 2/3/19 | | Memorandum of complaint filed in DCDRC Palakkad | |
- From a perusal of the chronology listed above it can be seen that the complainant became aware of rusting on 18/3/2015. Thereafter the complainant had approached the opposite party on various occasions. Since the complainant became aware of the problem of rusting on 18/3/2015, this complaint ought to have been filed atleast by 18/3/2017. This complaint was filed only on 2/3/2019, that is, with a delay of nearly two years.
- Reason for waiting till 2019, after coming to know of the rusting in 2015, is that the O.P.s had informed the complainant that it is a normal occurrence and that the rust could be removed with water. Any man of normal common sense would be able to appreciate the fact that rust cannot be washed away with water and that water expedites corrosion. We are unable to appreciate this reason adduced by the complainant.
- Hence we hold that this complaint is barred by limitation.
- Since the complaint is barred by limitation, a resort to other disputes and evidence adduced in the complaint would be of little assistance to the complainant.
- This complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 11th day of August, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President Sd/-
Vidya A.
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of quality control report dated 8/3/2015
Ext.A2 – Copy of invoice dated 18/3/2015
Ext.A3 – Copy of service quality inspection report 25/7/2016
Ext.A4 – Copy of invoice dated 26/7/2016
Ext.A5 – Copy of service quality inspection report 20/8/2018
Ext.A6– Copy of invoice dated 29/10/2018
Ext.A7 – Copy of invoice dated 20/2/2018
Ext.A8 – Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 14/2/2019
Ext.A9 – Copy of registration certificate
Ext.A10 – Copy of PUC certificate
Ext.A11 - Copy of tax invoice dated 6/4/2013
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Copy of invoice dated 18/3/2015
Ext.B1(a) – Copy of quality control report dated 8/3/2015
Ext.B2 – Copy of page 1 invoice dated 20/2/2018
Ext.B2(a) – Copy of page 2 of invoice dated 20/2/2018
Ext.B2(b) – Copy of Service quality inspection report dated 20/2/2018
Ext.B3 - Copy of invoice dated 29/10/2018
Ext.B4 - Copy of invoice dated 30/03/2019
Court Exhibit:
Ext.C1 – Commission report filed by MVI Sri.Padmakumar P.K.
Ext.C2 –Commission report filed by AMVI Sri.Biju.V
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 – Mohankumar (Complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
