Haryana

StateCommission

A/1142/2018

M/S TOYOTA CAPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVINDER JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN SHARMA

05 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First AppealNo.1142 of2018

Date of the Institution: 28.09.2018

Date of Decision: 05.01.2022

 

M/s Toyota Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd., MGF Toyota, 10 IDC, Mehrauli-Gurgaon road, Gurgaon, through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

Ravinder Jain, Advocate, District Courts, Gurgaon, R/o H.No.999, Sector-14, Gurgaon.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram SinghChaudhary, Judical Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Rohit Rana , Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Proceedings through virtual hearing.

2.      Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 19.09.2012, he (complainant) had purchased corolla vehicle.  Immediately after purchase, some defects cropped up within short period and complained was lodged which was still pending meaning thereby there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  In November 2016, other defects were also found.  On 08.11.2016, he approached authorized service centre of the opposite party (OP).  The vehicle had covered only 81175 Kms.  At the time of delivery, the complainant was issued invoice dated 08.11.2016 demanding Rs.1,12,779/-, which was objected by him and referring to the basic warrant coverage which is reproduced as under:-

“Toyota warrants that it will either repair or replace any Toyota supplied part, that is found defective in material or workmanship, under normal use, except those items listed under what is not covered, within a period of 36 months or 100000 Kms whichever comes first.

          The complainant had only covered 82175 KMs and as such it would be deemed as covered from the warranty up to one lacs Kms and fastening such terms and conditions in warranty amounted to unfair trade practice. The defect erupting in Engine of a vehicle valued at around 18 lacs covering a short distance of 81175 kms proved that it had manufacturing defect and opposite party was not entitled to recover said bill for Rs.1,12,779/-. The opposite party failed to accept the genuine demand of the complainant, however, he had no option but to pay the demanded amount under protest.  As per law and warranty card, the OP was bound to honour its commitments not to charge any amount for repair or replacement till the vehicle had covered 100000 KMs whereas the vehicle covered only 81175 KMs, the OP was not entitled to recover the amount and as such the amount of Rs.1,12,779/- was refundable to him alongwith interest.  He requested the OP to refund the huge amount but OP refused to pay the amount of Rs.1,12,779/-. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P by filing reply before the District Forum (Now  ‘District Commission’).  Preliminary objections about the complaint was not maintainable; non-joinder of necessary party, suppressing of material facts etc. have also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

          On merits, it was denied that immediately after purchase some defects cropped up within short period.  The complainant has been coming to the workshop after sales service and periodical inspection for routine and regular check up and for availing free service in terms of service manual and has never complained about any major defect.   The vehicle was reported to the respondent on 03.02.2016 for routine service of 70,000 km.  Upon inspection, it was found that brake discs were required to be skimmed and brake pads were required to be replaced but the approval for the same was not given by him. The vehicle was reported to the respondent on 20.10.2016 at 81,175 km for the concern of low pick up. Upon inspection, it was found that turbocharger was required to be replaced for the rectification of the concern.  The replacement of the said part could not be covered under warranty as the vehicle warranty had lapsed already on 18.09.2015 i.e. 36 months had already expired from the date of purchase of the vehicle.  Turbocharger assembly was replaced on payment basis after taking prior approval from him. The replacement of parts or its repair without charges was subject to the condition laid down in the warranty card, manual issued by the company. The vehicle warranty had lapsed already on 18.09.2015, therefore the said part could not be replaced free of cost. The terms and conditions of the service manual/customer manual can only be challenged either before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court.  It was denied that life of a vehicle depends upon the distance it has covered and not in years.  The case did not fall under the warranty. It was denied that OP failed to accept the genuine demand of the complainant. The respondent has honoured its commitment and had rightly charged the requisite amount for repair/replacement of the part as the period of 36 months had already expired and vehicle was no longer under warranty. The complainant is not entitled for the amount as prayed for.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Commission”)  allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.08.2018, which is as under:-

“Therefore, keeping in view the facts of earlier complaint which was filed within a period of two years and had covered 30,000 kms which was got dismissed as withdrawn, we are inclined to hold that the defects in the vehicle has been reported by the complainant to the OP within the warranty period and subsequently while the vehicle was within the mileage warranty of 1 lac and thus the OP has to rectify the problem by treating the vehicle within warranty and  charging of Rs.1,12,779/- tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thus the OP is directed to refund the said amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. Further the complainant is also entitled for compensation and thus the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Varun Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Rohit Rana, the learned counsel for the respondent.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint  and appellate file had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Further argued that vehicle was reported to the respondent on 03.02.2016 for routine service of 70,000 km and upon inspection, it was found that brake discs were required to be skimmed and brake pads were required to be replaced but the approval for the same was not given by the complainant. The vehicle was reported to the respondent on 20.10.2016 at  81,175  km for the concern of low pick up. The service history reported that  vehicle came on 20.10.2016 at 81175 kms and upon inspection it was revealed that turbo charger was required to be changed. The turbo charger was not covered under warranty. The learned District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint and prayed for set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent vehemently argued that on 19.09.2012, he purchased corolla vehicle from OP.  Immediately after purchase, some defects cropped up within short period and complained was lodged which was still pending.  In November 2016, other defects were also found.  On 08.11.2016, he approached authorized service centre of the opposite party (OP) where at the time of checking the vehicle had covered only 81175 Kms.  At the time of delivery, the complainant was issued invoice dated 08.11.2016 demanding Rs.1,12,779/-, which was objected by him. The basic warranty coverage of the automobile company, which denotes that  “Toyota warrants that it will either repair or replace any Toyota supplied part, that is found defective in material or workmanship, under normal use, except those items listed under what is not covered, within a period of 36 months or 100000 Kms whichever comes first.          The complainant had only covered 82175 KMs and as such it would be deemed as covered from the warranty up to one lacs Kms. OP was bound to honour its commitments not to charge any amount for repair or replacement till the vehicle had covered 100000 KMs.  The learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and dismiss the appeal as prayed for.

9.      The composite reading of the averments taken in the complaint, reply filed thereto as well as the grounds of appeal, it is true that the complainant purchased a vehicle on 19.09.2012 from O.P.  It is also true that after purchase, the defects cropped up in the said vehicle.  It is also true that opposite party charged Rs.1,12,779/- from the complainant under protest.            It has been specifically contended as per the contents of the complaint as well as evidence taken on record, the specific deficiencies found in manufacturing of the vehicle has been pointed out by the complainant after the purchase of the vehicle.  Since the vehicle in question was having some problem.  It was the bounden duty of the  O.P. to rectify the vehicle free of cost.  Though, it started trouble within warranty period.   As per the terms and conditions of the OP ‘The Toyota warrants that it will either repair or replace any Toyota supplied part, that is found defective in material or workmanship, under normal use, except those items listed under what is not covered, within a period of 36 months or 100000 Kms whichever comes first.’  Since the complainant had only covered 82175 KMs and as such it would be deemed as covered from the warranty up to one lac kms.  The OP-appellant was bound to rectify the problem of the vehicle free of costs.  Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The OP-appellant has illegally charged Rs.1,12,779/- from the complainant under protest.  There is none of the fault of the complainant as the vehicle is within the warranty period.  The OP in its reply admitted that complaint was withdrawn in the year 2017, which reveals that complainant approached the District Forum for repair of the vehicle free of costs. The problem occurs within warranty period.  In that eventuality,  the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,12,779/-.   The learned District Commission rightly allowed the complaint.

10.    In view of the above observation and discussion, no illegality could be found with the order  dated 27.08.2018 passed by learned District Commission, Gurugram vide which the complaint was allowed and as such, the appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited in appeal at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 05th, 2022                                                  Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                                 Judicial Member                                                                                            Addl.Bench          

S.K. (Pvt. Secy)