DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 15th day of October 2024
Filed on: 17.01.2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 31/2023
COMPLAINANT
Mathew Joseph, Vetticappallil House, Pallipurathussery P.O., Vaikom, Kottayam.-686 606
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Nippon Toyota, X/314K, NH Byepass, Nettoor P.O., Kochi-682 040, rep. by its Service Manager, Ajesh V.Kartha, Puthuppara House, Vengola P.O., Arackappady, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam-683 556.
(By Adv.P.Viswanathan , M/s.P.Viswanathan Associates, Karthika, Asoka Road, Kaloor, Kochi-17)
F I N A L O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
This consumer complaint is filed by Mathew Joseph, Vetticappalil House, Pallipurathussery P.O., Vaikom against Nippon Toyotta alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. The complainant states that he had purchased Etios model car manufactured by Toyotto on 28.08.2014 from the showroom of the opposite party at Kottayam. The vehicle was registered at RT office Vaikom and Number KL -36-D-8824 was assigned to the vehicle. The opposite party informed the complainant that the 3 year warranty which has completed in the year 2017 but the vehicle had run only 35000 kilometer and therefore the opposite party advised the complainant to renew the warranty of the vehicle.
Accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.17910/- and the warranty was renewed in the year August 2017. Subsequently, on 20.11.2021 shock absorber of the vehicle of the complainant became defective. The vehicle was run only 80436 kms. But the opposite party informed the complainant that the absorber cannot be replaced at free of cost since 3 year has already been completed. The complainant paid the said amount. Thereafter on different occasions, ie,., on 12.01.2022, 13.11.2022 etc the complainant states that the vehicle of the complainant became defective and the spare parts were either replaced or defects cured by the opposite party after accepting the cost of the parts and service charge. The main allegations of the complainant is that the vehicle broke down near Angamaly and the complainant approached a private workshop and had to bear an amount of Rs.21,500/- to replace the damaged spare parts. The complainant claims that people like the complainant also ought to get the coverage and offers provided by the companies like the opposite parties. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached the Commission seeking for getting the relief for Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also for an amount of Rs.3910/- as refund of amount paid by the complainant.
- Notice
Eventhough notice was sent to the opposite party from this Commission, the opposite party had not filed their version in time and hence opposite party is made ex-parte.
- Evidence
The complainant produced Exbt.A1 to A6 and as per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission in RP 85/2023 dated 13.11.2023, the opposite party was given a chance for hearing. The opposite party also filed argument note at the time of hearing. Exbt.A1 produced by the complainant is the invoice of Rs.716478/-. Exbt.A2 is the Certificate of Registration. Exbt.A3 is a bill issued by the opposite party towards repair. Exbt.A4 and Exbt.A5 are also the bills issued by the opposite party towards repairing charges. Exbt.A6 is a bill issued by the Car Care Autos Kavaraparambu, Nayathod P.O., Angamaly.
4) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) Point No. (i)
The Commission upon making a very thorough probe into the overall aspects of the case and also on perusal of documents and records produced from either side reached into the following inferences.
The complainant states that he had availed an extended warranty from the opposite party for his vehicle. The terms and conditions of the warranty or extended warranty had not been produced by the complainant. The complainant states that he is assuming to be eligible for getting free service from the opposite party since there is an extended warranty. It is not known as to whether the extended warranty is assured by the opposite party for one lakh km or for 3 years on condition that whichever is early. The opposite party also had not denied even at the time of hearing or in the argument note that the opposite party had not provided the warranty or extended warranty to the complainant’s vehicle. Both parties had not produced any evidence before the Commission regarding the conditions laid down in the warranty certificate and in the absence of which the arguments of the complainant that he is eligible to get free service during the period is to be taken into account. The complainant produced Exbt.A6 document in which it can be seen that an amount of Rs.21,500/- is paid by the complainant on 17.11.2022 for the repair work done at an outside workshop. The opposite party had not challenged this document or had not moved the Commission to examine them as a witness. Moreover, the opposite party had not filed version in time. Therefore there is merit in the argument of the complainant, especially under circumstances at which terms and conditions and extended warranty had not produced before the Commission by the opposite party and therefore the following orders are issued.
- The opposite party shall pay an amount of rs.21500/- which is the amount spent by the complainant for repairing his vehicle at an outside agency.
- An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be paid by the opposite parties to complainant as compensation.
- The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The above order shall be comply with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from the date of order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 15th day of October 2024.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
Exbt.A1 produced by the complainant is the invoice of Rs.716478/-.
Exbt.A2 is the Certificate of Registration. Exbt.A3 is a bill issued by the opposite party towards repair.
Exbt.A4 and Exbt.A5 are also the bills issued by the opposite party towards repairing charges.
Exbt.A6 is a bill issued by the Car Care Autos Kavaraparambu, Nayathod P.O., Angamaly.
Date of Despatch ::
By Hand ::
By Post ::
uk/
Assistant Registrar
