BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,PUDUCHERRY

THURSDAY, the 10^th day of December, 2015

C.C.No.4/2013

V.Pethaperumal, S/o Velayuda Gramani,

No.349, Vazhudavur Road,

Sokkanathanpet, Puducherry-9.              ………….                                      Complainant

                                                                     Vs.

1. M.s Lanson Motors P. Ltd.,

     Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

     Having Office at No.18, Ellapillaichavady

     Main Road, Puducherry – 9.

2. M/s Lanson Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

    Having Office at No.34, Poonamallee High Road,

    Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

3. M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors P. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

    Having Office at No.95, PIE Patparganj,

    Industrial Area, New Delhi.

4. M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors P. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

   Having Office at 10^th Floor, Canberra Towers,

   U.B.City No.24, Vittal Malaya Road,

   Bangalore.                                                    …………                                  Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN

PRESIDENT

TMT.K.K.RITHA,

MEMBER

THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,

MEMBER

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Thiru R.Soupramanian,

Advocate, Puducherry.

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES.:

Thiru L.Swaminathan,

Advocate, Puducherry

O  R  D  E  R

(By Hon'ble Justice President)

            This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 setting out the following facts:

The complainant purchased a car on 23-01-2012 Under Model No. Toyota Etios from the 1^st opposite party by paying the entire cost of the car, by availing loan through Canara Bank. The car was delivered to him by the 1^st opposite party on 23-01-2012. From the beginning of free service as well as paid services, he indicated several complaints to the 1^st opposite party. The details of complaints such as suspension of shock observer etc., were pointed out. However the defects were not rectified by the respondents. Water wash was also not properly done by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant, when asked by the customer care executive, informed that is not satisfied about the service rendered by the 1^st opposite party.  The car delivered to the complainant is a sub-standard one inherently having manufacturing defects. He caused a legal notice dated 16-02-2013 calling upon the opposite parties to take back the car and refund the cost of the car along with compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 have acknowledged the notice. The 2^nd opposite party gave an evasive reply on 16-03-2013. Hence the complaint.    

2.   The 1^st opposite party filed a response which is adopted by the other opposite parties. The sum and substance of the response is set out hereunder:

a. The complaint is preferred in order to achieve unlawful gains. There is no cause of action to prefer the complaint against the opposite parties. No details like when the car was given for service to the opposite party, nature of the defect reported etc., was not given. If there was any defect as pointed out in the complaint, the complainant would not have taken delivery of the car or returned the same within a day. The complainant after using the car for an year, is making bald allegations regarding the defects. The Complainant cannot seek for refund of the car price without establishing the fact that there exist manufacturing defects. The complainant has not filed any documents in support of the complaint. Nothing has been alleged against the opposite parties 3 and 4. Thus the response filed by the opposite parties seek for the dismissal of the claim.
 

3.   On behalf of the complainant, the complainant was examined as CW1. He was cross examined by the counsel appearing for the opposite parties. Exhibits C1 to C10 have been filed and marked on behalf of the complainant. No one was examined on behalf of the opposite parties. No documents were also filed on their behalf.

4.   We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

5.   The point for consideration in this compliant are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether opposite parties 3 and 4 are necessary parties and that the complaint has to be dismissed for mis - joinder of opposite parties 3 and 4?
3. Whether any deficiency of service is attributable against the opposite parties?
4. To what other relief the complainant is entitled for?               

6.   It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the car under Model Number Toyota Etios on 23-01-2012 from the opposite party and from the date of purchase it was giving problem. He has entrusted the car to the 1^st opposite party for free and paid service. However the defects were not rectified. Therefore he has approached the State Commission and filed the complaint. In our considered view the fact set out in the complaint clearly reveals that the complainant comes within the purview of  Sec 2 (15) of the Consumer Protection Act. The reason being the complainant has purchased a car from the 1^st opposite party and making a complaint about the car. Thus it is concluded that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

7.   As regards the 2^nd point, we are of the view that since the complainant has not whispered anything against the opposite parties 3 and 4, we have no other option but to dismiss the complaint against opposite parties 3 and 4 holding that they are unnecessary parties to the lis. However we are not inclined to dismiss the complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 also on this ground.

8.   Now it has to been seen whether there was any deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 and 2, as alleged by the complainant, which is point No. 3.

1. It is the case of the complainant that the car purchased from the opposite parties had defects. When it was entrusted to the 1^st opposite party during free service as well as paid service, the defects were pointed out but the same was not rectified. On behalf of the complainant exhibits C 1 to C 10 were filed and marked. Besides the complainant examined himself as CW1. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties none of the documents supports the claim of the complainant. Thus the complainant has not filed any documents in support of his complaint. C1 and C2 are the receipt vouchers issued by the 1^st opposite party, C3 is the acknowledgement card, C4 is certificate of registration given by the registering authority, C5 insurance policy in favour of the complainant, C6 is the legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel, C7 is the postal receipt for opposite party No. 3, C8 is the acknowledgement card of opposite party No.1, C 9 is the reply notice given by the 2^nd opposite parties counsels and C 10 is the acknowledgement card of the opposite party No. 4. The above reffered documents do not in any way support the case of the complainant. Thus we have to hold that the complainant has not established through the documents filed by him regarding the defincecy of any service of the opposite parties.
2. The evidence adduced by the complainant also do not support his case. He has clearly stated in his cross examination that,

“ I did not state in proof affidavit that I have pointed out the defects in the service render by opposite parties 1 and 2”.

“From 23-01-2012 the date on which the 1^st opposite party delivered a car to me, periadically  I was entruesting the car to the opposite parties 1 and 2 for service for every 5,000 KM run. Now the car would have run atleast 1,00,000 KM”

These admissions made by the complainant as CW1 would reveal that the complainant has not pointed out the defects in the service rendered by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that periodically the complainant was entrusting the car with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for service. Had the car had any manufactring defects and the service was not effective, he would have made a complaint at the inception itself. However, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has made a complaint to the opposite parties about the manufactring defects of the car or the poor service. For the 1^st time the complaint was made on 16-02-2013 through the lawyers notice under exhibts C6. Therefore, we are of the view that not only the complainant failed to establishe his case by filing relevant documents but also failed to prove his case through his oral evidence.

9.   One more aspect that has been seen is that the complainant used the car from 23-01-2012 and caused a legal notice only on 16-02-2013, that is after an year of using the car.

10.   Thus, the above aspects made us to conclude that the complainant has not made out any case against the opposite parties 1 and 2 regarding the deficiency of service. Thus we hold this point in favour of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and against the complainant.

11.   As regards point No. 4, in view of the finding renderded on points No. 1 to 3 no relef could be granted to the complainant.

12.    In fine the complaint stands dismissed. However there is no order as to cost.

Dated at Pudhucherry this the 10^th day of December 2015.

President

Member

Member

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

CW.1                                                   V. Pethaperumal

OPPOSITE PARTIES’S WITNESS:

            Nil

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTIES’S EXHIBITS:            

Nil

(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)

President

(K.K.RITHA)

Member

(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

Member