MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER
The C.C case has been filed U/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking the following relief that the O.Ps be directed to replace the defective car by providing a new one and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony, inconvenience, hardship and physical strain suffered by complainants and a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards travel expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
Heard the learned counsels from the O.ps and the complainant no.2 in person, perused the documents/ materials available on record and also gone through the complaint petition and written version filed by the O.ps. After perusal of the entire case record it is our considered view that the sole questions are to be decided in the present C.C.Case i.e whether the vehicle purchased by the complainants has got any inherent manufacturing defect and secondly whether the claim has been filed by the complainants within the warranty period of purchase.
As a matter of fact that the complainants have purchased one Toyota Etios Live diesel fuel Car from O.P.no.1 on dated 19.12.2016 bearing Regd. No.OD-34-C-0943. As alleged by the complainants, around beginning of February,2020 the Car started to expose manufacturing defects and subsequently on dated 26.07.2021 the complainant no.2 went to O.P.no.1 to get an update on the case. The service adviser explained about the seizer of engine and further informed that the same can be rectified on chargeable basis. The estimate cost was Rs.74,568/- and complainant no.2 advised to deposit Rs.50,000/- as an advance for requisition of spare parts. But the complainants find no justification of putting such a huge amount for manufacturing defect of the Car mailed their grievance to O.Ps and O.Ps intimated the complainants that, neither the company nor the dealer is having any liability and repair cost must be borned by the complainants. The complainants further alleged that the O.Ps have intentionally sold a defective car and as such the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practices. The O.Ps on the other hand submitted in their written versions that, the complaint petition is barred by limitation and the vehicle was reported about defect was beyond the warranty period which expired since 19th December,2019 and claim made after expiry of 7 months of warranty period .The O.Ps further stated that at no point of time these O.ps have harassed complainants by not paying the required amount for which , the vehicle could not be repaired. So, the O.Ps have never committed any deficiency in rendering services to the complainants which would be evident from the documents.( Copy annexed)
Taking into all the facts and circumstances involved in this case, it is our considered view that, the complainants filed a petition on dated 28.10.2022 for appointment of an expert to assess the claim of the complainants and the matter was heard by this Commission and O.Ps have filed their objection and ultimately on dated 06.05.2023 this Commission allowed the petition dated 28.10.2022 and listed the matter on dated 05.06.2023 for submission of expert opinion. Thereafter on dated 03.06.2023 inspection report of MVI, Jajpur on manufacturing defect exist or not on vehicle car “ Toyota Eties” Live Diesel Fuel Car bearing Regd.No.OD-34-C-0943 filed by the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Jajpur vide letter No.1075/ dated 03.06.23 ( Signature copy and Diagnosis sheet annexed) . As per the inspection report of MVI,Jajpur on vehicle Regd. No.OD-34-C-0943,Mr. Deepak kumar Sethy, Inspector of Motor vehicle, jajpur has conducted the inspection of the above said vehicle on dated 27.05.2023 at Espirit Toyata, Toyota,Telengapentha ,Cuttack in presence of complainant no.2 and representatives of O.P.no.1 to 4 ( Report of MVI,Jajpur dated 03.06.2023 annexed).
It is vey much pertinent to mention here that in the Expert opinion submitted by the MVI,Jajpur for the vehicle in question on dated 03.06.2023 and no where it was mentioned in the inspection report given by the Expert ( MVI,Jajpur) that, the vehicle is giving trouble due to inherent manufacturing defect, but it is happened due to negligence of the complainants for not doing timely service before the O.ps by dis-obeying the guide lines stipulated in the service/ warranty manual as well as suggestions of the service engineers. That apart the complainants brought the vehicle for repair before the O.ps after expiry of the warranty period, which can not be sustained in the eye of law.
That, in view of the aforesaid facts, it is our opinion that the complainants may get their vehicle, repaired at their own cost before the O.ps as per the estimate made by the O.ps and the O.ps are not responsible for the problems caused in the engine of the vehicle and as such the O.ps have not adopted any unfair trade practices and they are not deficient in rendering service to the complainants in any manner whatsoever. Hence, we do not find any merit in the C.C. Case and as such it is liable to be dismissed.
O R D E R
After thoughtful scrutiny of relevant materials exhibited on record, and on the aforesaid discussion made by us, this Commission do not find any merit in the present C.C.Case and as such it is hereby dismissed. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach the O.ps to give connection towards the repairing cost of the vehicle and the O.Ps may take a liberal view for the same.
With the aforesaid observations the C.C. Case No.95/2021 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.
Issue extract of the order to the parties concerned.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 6th day of October 2023.
