Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 432.
Instituted on : 29.10.2013.
Decided on : 06.04.2016.
Rajesh (age 35 years) s/o Sh. Omparkash R/o H.No.1340, Sugar Mill colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Globe Automobiles P. Ltd.(K)(Dealer of Toyota Car), situated at G.T. Road Karnal through its Prop./Manager/Authorized person.
- Satyam Autoservice Pvt. Ltd.(Dealer of Toyota Car), situated Near Bangar Cinema, Hissar road, Rohtak(Haryana) through its Prop./Manager/Auth. Person.
- Toyota Kirloskar Motor Ltd.(Customer Service Division), Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, P.O.Bidadi, Ramanagara, District Karnataka-562109.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Sonika Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.B.R.Arora, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Deepak Goel, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a car Toyota ETIOS LIVA GD from the opposite party no.1 on dated 29.06.2012 and the same was having warranty of 36 months or 100000/- k.m. whichever is earlier from the date of delivery. It is averred that since the date of purchase complainant never enjoyed even a single journey without any tension because the said vehicle is having several inherent manufacturing defects as the engine of the said vehicle started malfunctioning even in the warranty/guarantee period. It is averred that there was breakdown of the said car on various occasions and the complainant requested the opposite parties many times to rectify the defect or to change the car with new one but opposite parties never gave any satisfactory reply. It is averred that complainant lastly approached the opposite party no.2 on 13.09.2013 to remove and rectify the defects in the vehicle and the opposite party no.2 kept the said vehicle with himself and issued a job card dated 13.09.2013 and assured the complainant to remove all the defects within 3 days but on 16.09.2013 the vehicle was in the same condition and till date the said vehicle is lying with the opposite party no.2. It is averred that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 03.10.2013 but the same was not replied. It is averred the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to change the above said vehicle with new one or in alternative to refund the cost of the vehicle alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the answering opposite party had sold the defective vehicle to the complainant. The vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant in a satisfactory condition and after being satisfied with the working and functioning of the vehicle complainant has given acknowledgement in this regard on the delivery note dated 29.06.2012. It is averred that the allegation of any manufacturing or inherent defects in the vehicle are incorrect and denied and needs strict proof for the same. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that it is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle no.HR12T6130 and the caption vehicle reported for 40000 km service and with a problem of vehicle not starting/late starting problem on 13.09.2013 having odometer reading of 38457 and on diagnosis the answering opposite party found that fuel quality used in the vehicle was highly adulterated, which caused damage to fuel system which needed to be replaced but the complainant refused for the same as the parts cost was to be borne by the customer and he took delivery on 16.11.2013. It is averred that once again the vehicle reported for malfunctioning light glowing, the answering opposite party advised the complainant once again to replace the entire fuel system except the: “COMMON RAIL’. In fact got repairs effect from unauthorized workshops, thereby breaching the terms of warranty. It is averred that the inconvenience being suffered by the complainant is of his own doing, since he has damaged his vehicle by using adulterated fuel. The complaint deserves to be dismissal.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the subject vehicle is not defective. The vehicle as on 13.09.2013 was found to have loged 38457 kilometers which may unambiguously belie his claim about manufacturing defect, if any, the subject vehicle continues to be in use & possession of the complainant. It is averred that Common Rail was found impacted following use of adulterated fuel. The change thereof was offered to be undertaken by opposite party herein without cost as an extraordinary application of manufacturers’ warranty regardless to complainant not qualifying thereunder, the cost of attendant spares fell to complainant’s share which was conceded to initially but withdrawn subsequently thereby delaying process of repair, this is evident from copies of correspondences dated 28.09.2013 & 05.11.2013 issued by the dealer calling upon the complainant to give his consent before repair could be proceeded with or commenced. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in her evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and has closed her evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 made a statement that the written statement filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 be read as evidence. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP3/1, documents Ex.OP3/A to Ex.OP3/F and has closed his evidence.
7. We have heard ld. Counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
8. In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that he has got repaired his car from the opposite party but the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties and in the month of September 2013 he handed over his vehicle for repair but the opposite parties demanded money from the complainant inspite of the fact that the same was within limitation of warranty period. It is further contended that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect and has prayed for replacement of vehicle or refund of price.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per letter Ex.P15 it is submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party/dealer on 13.09.2013 with a problem of late starting and on diagnosis it was found that the quality of fuel in the vehicle was poor and all the fuel system needs to replace and the company as a goodwill gesture, approved “Common Rail” which was replaced in the vehicle and rest of fuel system cost was to be borne by the complainant which the complainant refused. To prove its contention opposite parties has placed on record copy of repair invoice Ex.OP3/C, whereby common rail changed as per special approval but the complainant had refused to change the fuel system. Hence from the documents placed on record by the parties it is observed that the complainant himself has refused to repair/replace the parts due to the fact that as per warranty conditions, the cost of the same was to be borne by the complainant and he had repaired the vehicle from the outside dealer for which opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount. Moreover regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle, complainant has not placed on record any expert evidence except the affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Sh. Ram Niwas proprietor of M/s Naman Motors Workshop who is merely a mechanic and not an authorized engineer/person and his report has no evidentiary value.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
