Haryana

StateCommission

A/289/2018

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUDESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

DHRITI J. SHARMA

18 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:07.03.2018

                Date of final hearing:29.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:18.06.2024

 

First Appeal No.289 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Post office Bidadi, Rama Nagar, Taulakh (Karnataka)-562109 through its Authorized Signatory Mr. S. Rengarajan.

.….Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      Sudesh Kumar son of Shri Chaman Singh C/o Shri Badan Singh, R/o House No.B-51, near Vinod Gas Agency Rishi Nagar, Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad.

…..Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Deepam Raghav, Advocate

 

2.      M/s Thirty Six Automobiles Private Limited, 14/7, Milestone, main Mathura Road, Faridabad (Haryana), Pin-121003 through its Authorized Person/ Managing Director.

.….Respondent No.2.

Proceeded against ex-parte.

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Deepam Raghav, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15^th February, 2019.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.01.2018, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (now ‘District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”) were directed as under:-

“Opposite party Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severally, are directed to replace engine of the vehicle in question with new one free of cost and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony as well as harassment besides Rs.5100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

 

2.               The brief facts giving rise to the complaint before learned District Commission are that the complaint purchased a new Etios Liva car from OP No.1 on 12.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,99, 900/- with warranty of three years or 1,00,000 KMs. whichever occurred earlier from the date of sale. The complainant also took two years extended warranty. After purchase, its complainant got his vehicle serviced in time. It was alleged that all of a sudden it was noticed that after running of 30,000 Kms., his car was consuming more engine oil than normal because usually the engine oil required change after running 30,000 Kms. The complainant lodged complaint with OP No.2 about said problem during service and OP No.2 on checking assured the complainant that there was no such engine problem in car. OP No.2 had clarified that 3.9 liters of Mobil Oil was filled in the Engine. After running 10,000 km more, the complainant at the time of next service again requested mechanic of OP No.2 to see and check the drained engine oil quantity from engine. It was further alleged that the complainant and the OP No.2 both found that there was only 1.5 Liters of engine oil lying in it which clearly showed that the engine was consuming more engine oil than normal. This proved that there were some defects in the engine of Car. OP No.2 assured the complainant that everything was OK with the engine and asked the complainant to run the vehicle for 5000 Kms. more and then come back for checkup of the vehicle again. After running 5000 Kms. the complainant again visited the service centre of the OP No.2 on 20.08.2015 and on checking, one liter of engine oil was found less. Further, the OP No.2 assured the complainant that it was ready to repair engine of the vehicle question as it was under warranty till then.

3.                It was further alleged that opening of engine of such a new car clearly showed that there were some manufacturing defects and after reassembling of engine of a car, life of the engine automatically would have decreased to half of its original life. Thereafter, the complainant immediately reported the matter to   OPs No.1 & 2 and requested to replace the engine with new one instead of repairing but OPs refused to do so. It was further alleged that the complainant sent e-mails and telephoned OPs several times but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant enquired from a good car mechanic of M/s. Tej Motors, opposite Thomson Press, Ajronda Chowk, Mathura Road, Faridabad, who told that even after re-assembling of engine some defects remained and that mechanic also clarified that after the re-assembling of engine, the car will start giving troubles. He also confirmed that due to leakage or excess consumption of Engine Oil, the Engine of the car could get jammed any time and it was very risky on the road as well as there would be many chances of accident. After reassembling of engine, its sound would also increase. The complainant sent legal notice on 30.07.2016 through post but OPs neither replied said notice nor refunded the price of said car to the complainant. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                Upon notice, Ops appeared before learned District Commission and filed their separate written version. OP No.1 in its reply submitted that the complainant had registered his issue with OP No.1 in May 2015 at 39450 Kms. However, it was admitted that OP No.1 had found 1.5 liters engine oil and had asked the complainant to check the same at every 5000 Kms. The complainant on 20.8.2015 had again visited OP No.1 at 45229 Kms and OP No.1 had found 2.9 liters of engine oil. It was further submitted that OP No.1 had suggested the complainant that it was ready to replace the piston and piston rings to solve the problem of said car. Other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied by OP No.1 and it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

5.                OP No.2 in its written version submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as said vehicle was out of warranty and said vehicle was not got serviced by the complainant as per schedule. The complaint was time barred as said vehicle was purchased on 12.8.2013. It was further submitted that the vehicle in question was properly attended as per vehicle history dated 13.01.2017 and the vehicle had covered more than 80,000 Kms. Other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied by OP No.2 and it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

6.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint and issued directions as mentioned in para 1^st (Supra).

7.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-OP No.2 has preferred this appeal.

8.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Deepam Raghav, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 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 had also been properly perused and examined. However, respondent No.2 failed to appear before this Commission despite service, so it was proceeded against ex-parte by this Commission vide order dated 15^th February, 2019.

9.                It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1-complaint purchased a new car made Etios Liva from respondent No.2-OP No.1 on 12.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,99, 900/- with warranty of three years or 1,00,000 KMs. whichever occurred earlier from the date of sale. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.1-complainant also took two years extended warranty. It is also an admitted that during service it was noticed that the car in question was consuming more engine oil than normal after running of 30,000 Kms. because usually the engine oil required change after running 30,000 Kms. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.1-complainant lodged a complaint in this regard with present appellant-OP No.2 and on checking appellant-OP No.2 had clarified that 3.9 liters of Mobil Oil was filled in the engine it was assured that there was no problem regarding engine of the car. Again it is an admitted fact that on 20.08.2015, respondent No.1-complainant visited the service centre of appellant-OP No.1 and it was found that engine oil was found less in quantity and the present appellant-OP No.2 was ready to replace the piston and piston rings to solve the problem of said car in question.

10.              In view of the above observations and discussion, it stands proved that the engine of said vehicle was consuming more engine oil than the normal and thus the engine of said vehicle has manufacturing defect. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of present appellant-OP No.2 while rendering services to respondent No.1-complainant.

11.              Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the finding given by the learned District Commission on merit.  The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, and therefore, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal is without merit and thus, stands dismissed.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 18^th June, 2024                                               S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench-III

 

R.K