Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/153/2016

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Savita Kumari - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Sharma & Dhriti J Sharma, Adv.

20 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	153 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	18.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.05.2016

 

Toyota Kirloskar Motors Limited, Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Post Office Bidadi, Ram Nagar Taulakh, Bengaluru (Karnataka) 562109, through its Authorized Signatory

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

1. Savita Kumari w/o Sh.Sanjiv Joshi, R/o H.No.1012, Phase-3B2, Mohali, Punjab 170055

…..Respondent no.1/complainant

2. Em Pee Motors Ltd., Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177-H, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Representative. 
3. New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.15, Sector 30, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

           ....Respondents No.2 and 3/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Ms.Dhriti Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.03.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted a complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent no.1) and directed opposite parties no.1 and 2 (now one of which is the appellant and second is respondent no.2), as under:-

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs No.1 & 2 jointly & severally and dismissed qua Opposite Party NO.3. The Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally directed as under:-

[a]      To refund Rs.34,821/- (paid against the repair of AC Unit) to the complainant;

[b]      To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[c]     To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.”

2.        Before the Forum, it was case of respondent no.1 that he purchased a car make ETIOS GD LMV in the year 2013. It was got insured from respondent no.3. In the month of first week of July 2014, its Air-Conditioner (AC) stopped functioning and foul smell started coming out from its blower. It was taken to respondent no. 2 for repairs, where it was detected that a mouse had entered into the AC duct and has damaged AC kit of the car. Proper arrangement/ procedure to stop entering of rats, snakes etc., in the AC/its duct, was not made by the manufacturer, which resulted into damage to the AC of the said car. It was also alleged that as per job sheet, rat had entered and damaged the mats etc., inside car, and died in its engine/AC kit. It was averred that there was manufacturing defect, in not making proper arrangement to stop entrance of rats etc, in the engine and other parts of the car. The said AC was repaired by respondent no.2, for an amount of Rs.37,000/-, which took more than one week and respondent no.1 was without car for the period, when it was under repair. By stating as above, respondent no.1 filed a complaint, before the Forum, which was allowed vide the order under challenge.
3.        Upon notice, the appellant put in appearance and admitted sale of the car to respondent no.1. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect, in the said car. It was stated that Model of the car was duly approved under Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. as such, no fault can be found therein.
4.        Respondent no.2, in its written reply admitted the sale and repair of the vehicle in question.  It was stated that entering of a rat in the section of said car could not be controlled. Car of respondent no.1 was repaired to his entire satisfaction.  It was averred that respondent no.1, failed to produce on record any cogent and expert evidence to prove his case.
5.        Despite deemed service, none put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3, as a result whereof, it was proceed against exparte vide order dated 04.09.2015.
6.        The appellant, respondents no.1 and 2, led evidence in support of their case.
7.        After hearing Counsel for the appellant, respondents no.1 and 2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
8.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
9.        We have heard Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10.        The Forum on analysis of evidence on record and pleadings of the parties, to give relief to respondent no.1, observed as under:-

“8]       Though we understand that the complainant having alleged that there was no barrier or wire-mesh to stop the access of any foreign-body inside the air-ducts of the air conditioning unit, and the dead mouse recovered from the air conditioning unit had entered it through the air ducts by bringing any expert opinion on record, but in the given scenario the absence of job card, which is in the custody of Opposite Party No.2 and has not been placed on record by it to make us understand about its observations with regard to the presence of rodent/mouse inside the AC unit, compels us to believe that there is a deliberate attempt to cover-up the actual fact about the existence of a barrier or a wire-mesh in the air-ducts of the vehicle in question. In the given situation, the allegations of the complainant, which are duly supported by her sworn affidavit, prevailed against pleadings of Opposite Party No.2, which has failed to place on record the product literature of the vehicle in question and the job card in question, which was prepared at the time of taking the vehicle inside its workshop for necessary repairs.  The reply of Opposite Party No.2 is totally hollow and has no basis, as there is no report from the Workshop Manager or the person, who had opened the air conditioning unit of the vehicle in question, as he was the best person to make such facts come to light, after which the onus of bringing the expert opinion by the complainant in order to support its averments.  Even the absence of product literature clarifying that no wire-mesh is installed in the air-ducts of the vehicle in question at the time of its manufacture, which would have falsified the claim of the complainant that the same is a manufacturing defect. 

 

9]       Even Opposite Party NO.1, the manufacturer of the vehicle in question, has not placed on record the product details of the vehicle in question and specifically of the air conditioning unit.  In the given situation, the averment of the complaint, which are duly supported by the sworn affidavit of the complainant, go unrebutted and Opposite Party NO.1 & 2 are held deficient in rendering proper service to her, due to the lack of proper safeguards discouraging the entry of any foreign-body inside the air conditioning unit either directly or through air-ducts of the vehicle. ”

11.        We feel that the findings given by the Forum are perfectly justified. It is rightly said that in not making proper arrangement to prevent entry of rats etc., in the inner part of the car and its engine, a grave error has been committed by the appellant, which would amount to manufacturing defect in the car. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the appellant has failed to convince this Commission, to make any interference, in the order under challenge.
12.        No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellant.
13.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
14.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

20.05.2016

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Rg