STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution:15.04.2024
Date of final hearing: 30.04.2024
Date of order: 30.04.2024
Revision Petition No.24 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized representative having its registered office at Plot-1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagara, District Karnataka. ....Revisionist
Versus
1. Parminder Singh Dhull, S/o Late Sh. Ch. Dal Singh, R/o Kothi No. 2123, Urban Estate, Jind.
2. Globe Automotives Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Globe Toyota Karnal, GT Road, Opp. PTC Madhuban, Karnal, Haryana-132117.
3. Globe Toyota, through its General Manager, Jind, Rohtak Road, Village Gobin Dpura, Jind, Haryana.
CORAM: Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Mrs. Manjula, Member
Argued by:- Mr.Karan Sinha, Adv. for revisionist.
Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Adv. for respondent No.1.
None for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
ORDER
PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
In this revision petition; Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.-OP No.1 has challenged legality of order dated 12.03.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Jind (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.323 of 2023, vide which learned District Consumer Commission has appointed Government ITI-Jind as ‘Local Commissioner’ to inspect manufacturing/mechanical/technical defects in vehicle No. HR-10Q-0054-Toyota Innova Crysta 2.4. It has been further mentioned in said order that parties or their counsels be informed of date and time of inspection and Local Commissioner (ITI-Jind) to submit its report along with memo of appearance of parties at the time of inspection, before it (District Consumer Commission-Jind) on 15.04.2024.
2. Though, no notice of this revision petition has been issued by this Commission; but Sh. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1-complainant today and filed his power of attorney.
3. Learned counsel for complainant, at very outset has apprised that inspection, in pursuance to order dated 12.03.2024 passed by District Consumer Commission-Jind, has already been conducted. However, there is no inspection report so appended along with this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for revisionist has contended that ITI-Jind is not possessed with requisite expert technical know-how, to ascertain manufacturing/mechanical/technical defects in vehicle No. HR-10Q-0054-Toyota Innova Crysta 2.4 and revisionist is ready to cooperate with complainant in this regard in order to find manufacturing/mechanical/technical defect in vehicle, should, the vehicle be inspected by Laboratory duly authorized by Central Government under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Learned counsel appearing for complainant has stated that complainant has ‘no objection’ for carrying inspection of vehicle in question for finding out manufacturing/mechanical/technical defect in it, to be conducted by Laboratory, duly authorized by Central Government under rules. However, he has urged that cost of towing the vehicle in question at said laboratory should be borne by revisionist, while complainant would bear the cost of inspection to be conducted inside at the premises of said laboratory.
5. This Commission opines that element of bearing cost for towing the vehicle at authorized Laboratory by revisionist, and likewise element of bearing cost of conducting inspection in the premises of said Laboratory by complainant, sounds fairness.
6. Notwithstanding availability of any inspection report already on the file of District Consumer Commission-Jind, from Govt. ITI-Jind, in furtherance to impugned order dated 12.03.2024; District Consumer Commission-Jind would now endeavor to get the vehicle in question, examined from ‘The International Centre for Automotive Technology, Manesar (ICAT)’ for ascertaining alleged manufacturing/mechanical/ technical defect in it. It is made clear that: expenses for towing vehicle in question, from the place where it is presently lying, to the premises of above laboratory would be solely borne by Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.-revisionist and same would be duly deposited by it, before learned District Consumer Commission-Jind. Similarly, resultant expenses for getting the vehicle examined from experts, inside at the premises of ‘The International Centre for Automotive Technology, Manesar (ICAT)’ would be solely borne by complainant and same would be deposited by him with said agency itself, at the time of inspection against proper receipt.
7. ‘The International Centre for Automotive Technology, Manesar (ICAT)’ would submit its report in sealed cover, before learned District Consumer Commission-Jind for its appraisal. Thereafter, learned District Consumer Commission-Jind would proceed with the complaint in accordance with law in the light of report which would be submitted by above noted expert agency.
8. In wake of above discussion; impugned order dated 12.03.2024 does not legally survive and same is set aside. Revision petition is accordingly allowed. Parties through their counsels would appear before learned District Consumer Commission-Jind on 07.05.2024.
9. It would be sole prerogative of District Consumer Commission-Jind to fix appropriate dates for purpose of inspection of vehicle in question by ‘The International Centre for Automotive Technology, Manesar (ICAT)’ after deposit of requisite ‘towing charges’ by revisionist. It is further made clear that complainant would be present at the premises of above said agency at the time of inspection.
10. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. Order be uploaded forthwith on website of Commission for perusal of parties.
11. Revision file be consigned.
Date of order: 30th April, 2024.
Manjula Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-I Addl. Bench-I
