Date of Filing:28-02-2015
Date of Order:18 -3-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 18th day of March, 2019
C.C.No.140 /2015
Between
Kiran Deshmukh
H.No.5-99/2, Chavidigully,
Kotagiri, Nizamabad
Telangana
Andhra Pradesh - 503207 ……Complainant
And
- The Manger,
Radha Krishna Toyota,
D.No.7-2-A5, Mainroad,
Sanathnagar,
Hyderabad – 500018
- The Managing Director,
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited,
Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial –Area,
Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore Rural District,
Karnataka ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Ms. G.Sudha
Counsel for the opposite Party No.1 : Mr.A.P.Venu Gopal
opposite Party No.2 : Mr.P.M.Gopalakrishna
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that the car sold to the complainant by the opposite parties got a manufacturing defect relating to AC hence refund of the entire cost of the car with interest at 14% P.A and to award a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant on account of sale of defectively manufactured car to him by the opposite parties and cost of this complaint at Rs.1,000/-.
- Complainant’s case in brief is that the opposite party No.1 is branch office of opposite party No.2. On 14-07-2012 he purchased Toyota Ethios GD car and paid a sum of Rs.6,76,071.82/- which includes VAT @ 14%. The vehicle was registered as AP09 CM 7569. Ever since purchase car started giving problems, AC of the car does not work efficiently. During the summer season the inside temperature of the car increases up to 32 degrees at his native District Nizamabad causing awful suffocation. Number of times complainant and his family members reported to opposite party No.1 about the working condition of AC . A quality test was conducted by opposite party No.1 on 21-10-2014 and as per the said report a test drive was conducted to the car from Sanathnagar to Bowenpally to Lingampalli and recorded outside temperature as 32 degrees with humidity level as 52% and the inside cabin temperature as 24.8 degrees with inside humidity as 32%. Though the parameters conducted in the test drive report shows normality still there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
Complainant in order to resolve the issue filed an RTA application on 22-10-2014 with the officer of Toyota in regard to various necessary information but it was of no use. The complainant received un professional services from the opposite parties and it created unnecessary hassles in his life resulting loss of time and money. The complainant and his family members are facing lot of mental stress and agony in addition to the loss of time and money for making several requests with opposite parties. Complainant had sent a letter on 14-11-2014 for redressal of the grievance but it was not of any use. Thus the opposite parties behavior resulted in mental agony to the complainant as they acted in unfair trade practice by fraudulently extracting complainant’s money and it is also deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
- Opposite parties filed separate written versions with identical defense admitting the purchase of the car from the opposite party No.1 but denied the rest of the complainant’s version. The defense set out in the written version’s is that the present complaint has been filed for oblique motives to gain unlawfully at the cost of the opposite parties. The complaint is devoid of cause of action and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. The complainant after 3 years of the purchase of the car without actually mentioning the details of the same and after expiry of actual warranty period filed the present complaint. The allegation of the complainant that AC is not working efficiently during the summer at Nizamabad is false. The technical team of the opposite parties have followed prescribed operating procedure for the functioning of the AC with technical parameters prescribed and complainant has knowledge of it. For the first time complainant raised about the working of AC on 21-06-2013 at the Kilometer reading 8996 when the vehicle was brought for first free service. At the time the vehicle was checked and found OK and at that time head lamp was adjusted and suspension changed under warranty. Thereafter vehicle was met with an accident and it was brought for repairs on 10-10-2013 and after attending repairs the vehicle was delivered to the complainant to his satisfaction in roadworthy condition. When the complainant complaint of focusing of head lamp with approval from the opposite party No.2 benefit of 20 liters of diesel was sanctioned on 17-01-2014 and complainant was satisfied at that time. The vehicle was again met with an accident on 18-03-2014 and after attending repairs it was delivered back to the complainant on 22-3-2014 in roadworthy condition. Thereafter complainant starting complaining about the ineffectiveness of AC. It has been observed by technical team that the complainant was trying to compare the AC with Wagon “R” vehicle.
The technical team of the opposite parties drove the vehicle for one hour in October, 2014 for the first time though by that time the vehicle had run for 30,101 Kms as per the Odometer reading. The vehicle was due for the regular service at 30,000 Kilometers and with complainant’s approval for the vehicle was serviced and at that time the complainant insisted about the AC issue. Thereupon the complainant was requested for a joint test drive but he expressed his inability hence technical team of the opposite parties took the vehicle for test drive and found vehicle AC was within the parameters. But the report was not accepted by the complainant. There is no expert evidence from the complainant’s side to say that the functioning of AC in the vehicle is not to the satisfactorily. Whenever vehicle was brought the opposite party No.1 has serviced as per the prescribed standard procedure and delivered back to the complainant to his satisfaction, hence there is no question of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the opposite parties. There is no manufacturing defect to the car A.C and it is the imaginary feeling of complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the averments of the complaint and got exhibited six (6) documents to support of his version. For the Opposite Party No.1 evidence affidavit of Sri M.Sharma stated to be Manager of opposite party No.1 has got filed and for opposite party No.2 the evidence affidavit of Sri Shrinivas P.Gotur stated to be Deputy General Manager of it has got filed and substance of their affidavits also in line with the defense set out in the written version filed for them. One (1) document is exhibited for the opposite parties. For the opposite parties written arguments are filed and for the complainant only oral submissions are made.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could make out a case of unfair trade practice or deficiency of service relating to the car purchased by him from them ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The purchase of the car by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 is not in dispute. Complainant says ever since purchase of the car he has been facing plethora problems and specific allegation is AC system of the car is not working efficiently from the date of purchase. It is also claimed by him that numerous times he took the car to opposite party No.1 but opposite party No.1 denied its responsibility for the issue. Whenever a complaint is given about the working condition of the vehicle to an authorized service centre or in the showroom itself the customer will be provided a job card noting the problems mentioned by him. According to written version of opposite party No.1 when the car was brought in the October, 2014 it already run 30,101Kms and by then the car was more than 2 years old. The complainant has not filed the warranty given to the vehicle at the time of purchase. The opposite parties have categorically stated in the written version that the allegations made with regard to non-functioning of AC affectively the warranty period of the vehicle was over. Only for the first time in Ex.A6 notice complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party about the non-functioning of AC to his satisfaction and by then as already said the car was 26 months old. Another important aspect is car met with accidents twice which fact has been mentioned in the written version and same has not been denied by the complainant in the evidence affidavit. So by the time of notice under Ex.A5 car met with an accident twice and it was attended to the satisfaction of the complainant by opposite party No.1. As rightly pointed out by the opposite parties the complainant has not taken the vehicle to any of the service centre and got tested the functioning of AC. It is only self serving statement of complainant. When AC is not functioning satisfactorily how could he run the vehicle for 26 months for 30,101Kms is not stated.
Opposite parties have filed Ex.B1 which is booklet of AC basic diagnosis Manual. It is specifically said in the written version and evidence affidavit of the opposite party that the technical team of them after attending the necessary repairs and examining the AC the vehicle was taken for test drive for more than one hour and on one occasion the complainant was requested for joint test drive which fact is not denied by him in the evidence affidavit. The technical team of the opposite parties after test drive have reported that the working condition of AC is to the satisfactorily and standard one. The complainant even before this Forum has not opted for examination of AC working system in the car by independent technical expert and the reasons for it could be obvious. The very relief prayer of the complainant in the complaint is for refund of the entire cost of the car with interest for non-functioning of AC system to his satisfaction that too after car had run more than 30,000Kms in a span of 26 months itself speaks the intention of the complainant is to get back entire cost of the car paid by him after using the car for 26 months by himself and family members. As rightly pointed out by the opposite parties AC working condition of different vehicles cannot be compared. Similarly AC machine will work as per the norms and standard prescribed and it cannot be to the satisfaction of the one individual. Absolutely there is acceptable material beforer this Forum to believe the complainant’s version that right from the purchase of the car, the AC system is not working. If said fact is true he could have certainly asked in the very first month itself to replace either the car or AC system. The very fact that he is asking for refund of the entire cost of the car after using it for 26 months and running it for 30,101Kms speaks the intention of the complainant. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.2: In view of the above findings the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 18th day of March , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1is invoice
Ex.A2 is RC
Ex.A3is copy of quality control report
Ex.A4 is copy of letter dated 22-10-2014
Ex.A5 is letter dt.14-11-2014
Ex.A6 is copy First Flight Couriers Ltd receipt along with affidavit
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1 is Air Conditioning Basic Diagnosis Guide
MEMBER PRESIDENT
