DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 26th day of October 2021
C.C. 62/2016
Complainant
C.T. Muneer
S/o. Moosa Haji, Chouthodika House
Cheruvadi (P.O), Via Mavoor
Kozhikode. – 673 661.
(By Adv. K.P. Rajagopal)
Opposite Parties
1. The Manager
M/s. Toyotta Kirlosakaar Motor Ltd,
Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area
P.O. Bidadi, Ramnagara District
(By Adv.V.C. Sudeep)
2. The Manager
M/s. Amana Toyota, VPK Motors (P) Ltd
XIX/62, NH – 17, Kolathara (P.O)
Cheruvannur , Kozhikode – 673 655.
(By Adv. Faizal.P. Mukkam)
ORDER
By Sri.P.C.PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party is the authorised dealer of Toyota vehicles. The complainant purchased Innova 2.5 V Crysta (M) from the show room of the 2nd opposite party on 27.08.2011 by paying an amount of Rs.12,88,449/- and it was registered as KL-11-AK-1234. During september-october 2015, the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for service and return. At that time, it was found that the emblem ‘çrysta’ was damaged. The complainant wanted to replace the emblem and accordingly he paid the price and booked the emblem. The emblem was not made available when the repairing work was completed. The 2nd opposite party stated that the new emblem would reach shortly and assured to fix the emblem as and when received. But thereafter on contacting the 2nd opposite party they stated lame excuses. In the meanwhile, his vehicle met with an accident and was taken to the service centre of the 2nd opposite party for repairs. At the time of the repairs, they changed the stickers in the vehicle even though the same were not having any damage. But the emblem was not made available stating that the same was not received. Repeated requests made thereafter also proved futile. On 06/11/2015 the 2nd opposite party issued a letter informing him that ‘crysta’ emblem was no more available due to stoppage of production. At the time of the purchase of the vehicle, it was assured that the parts of the vehicle would be available on demand. The non-delivery of the parts is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. To identify the vehicle as the latest version of innova, the emblem ‘crysta’ is an important mark. The complainant was forced to use the vehicle without the emblem due to the non-delivery of the same. Several people insulted him stating that he was using an altered vehicle and it was not an original ‘crysta’. The complainant is a human rights worker and a social worker. The reputation of the complainant was damaged among the public. The complainant estimates the damage at Rs.10,00,000/-. He issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties demanding compensation. No reply was sent by the opposite parties. Thereafter they issued a notice stating that they would provide the emblem within 60 days after placing the order. The opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to compensate the complaint. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing version separately.
4. According to the 1st opposite party, the relationship between the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is a principal-to-principal basis. The 1st opposite party is not responsible for the acts and omissions of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 27/08/2011 and has been using the same for the last 5 years. The warranty period is over. The complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to replace the ‘crysta’ emblem on his vehicle which was not covered under warranty. The 2nd opposite party had intimated the complainant about the immediate non availability of stock and had informed that as and when the same was available, intimation would be given to him. The 2nd opposite party as soon as the stock was available, immediately informed the complainant through telephone and vide letter dated 28/08/2015 that the emblem could be delivered within 60 days of placing the order and requested for confirmation from the complainant. Instead of placing the order and obtaining the emblem, the complainant has chosen to file this frivolous complaint. Beyond the warranty period, if there is shortage of parts due to a non-availability of stock or due to non-production of the said part by the manufacturer, it does not amount to deficiency of service. The averment that due to the non presence of the emblem on the vehicle the complainant was ridiculed and defamed by the public is nothing but a concocted story . The complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
5. The 2nd opposite party has contended that the Innova 2.5 V ‘crysta’ (M) was a limited edition vehicle introduced in the year 2000 only. Only a limited number of vehicle was manufactured . The parts of the vehicle have to be procured only by placing orders. At the 1st visit of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party had placed order for the emblem of ‘crysta’ version vehicle for the complainant. After a few days the complainant again visited the service centre for repair work after an accident and asked for ‘crysta’ emblem. But the emblem had not reached and it was not readily available with the 2nd opposite party. It can be procured only by placing orders to the manufacturer. At the request of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party procured the ‘crysta’ emblem and intimated the complainant about its arrival. But he was prepared to make quarrel with 2nd opposite party and refused to take the emblem. There was no deficiency of service or denial any right of the complainant. It was at the request of the complainant that the stickers were changed at the time of 2nd visit for repairs. There was no unreasonable the delay in procuring the emblem. The emblem is now available with the 2nd opposite party and the complainant can at any time take emblem and fix it on his vehicle. The narration regarding the loss of reputation is false. No damage has been sustained to the complainant by reason of the non-availability of ‘crysta’ emblem. There is no deficiency in service rendered to the complainant who is still using the vehicle for all his purposes. With the above contentions, the 2nd opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency of service from the
part of the opposite parties ?
(2) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so,
what is the quantum?
(3) Reliefs and costs .
7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exhibits A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
8. Heard both sides . Brief arguments notes were also filed.
9. Point No: 1 and 2 : These points can be considered together for the sake of convenience. The present complaint is filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for the mental agony and loss sustained to the complainant due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties since there was failure on their part to make available the emblem ‘crysta’ for the vehicle of the complainant in spite of having collected the price.
10. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has examined two witnesses as PWs1 and 2 and produced and marked seven documents as Exts A1 to A7. PW1 is none other than the complainant. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. According to PW1, in spite of having paid the price of the emblem, the opposite parties failed to make available the emblem even after repeated requests. PW1 has deposed that to identify the vehicle, the emblem was necessary and due to the non-delivery of the emblem, he was constrained to use the vehicle without the emblem and several people insulted him and ridiculed him saying that he was using an altered vehicle and it was not an original crysta vehicle and his reputation was highly damaged among the public. PW2 has also maintained that the public insulted PW1 because of the absence of the emblem on the vehicle. Ext.A1 series are the lawyer notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement card, Ext A2 is the letter dated 28/12/2015 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant, Ext A3 is the letter dated 06/11/2015 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A4 is the estimate dated 06/10/2015, Exts A5 and A6 are the receipts and Ext.A7 is the Malayala Manorama daily dated 09/03/2017.
11. RW1 is the Customer Relations Manager of the 2nd opposite party. RW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the averments in the version. Ext.B1 and B2 are the copies of the letters dated 18/03/2016 and 03/05/2016 respectively.
12. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased Innova 2.5 V Crysta (M) vehicle from the show room of the 2nd opposite party on 27/08/2011. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party is the authorised dealer of the vehicle. The emblem of the car was damaged and so the complainant decided to change the emblem with a new one. He ordered a new emblem by paying the required price. Ext.A5 document shows that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.747.69 towards the price of the emblem on 23/09/2015.
13. The grievance of PW1 is that in spite of having approached the 2nd opposite party several times, he was not supplied with the emblem for which he made payment on 23.09.2015 as per Ext.A5. As per Ext.A3 letter dated 06/11/2015, the complainant was informed that the crysta emblem is no more available due to the stoppage of supply by the concerned vendor. Then as per Ext.A2 letter dated 28/12/2015 he was informed that the emblem could be delivered within 60 days after placing the order. But after filing of the complaint Ext.B1 and B2 letters were sent to the complainant on behalf of the 2nd opposite party. Ext. B1 is dated 18/03/2016 and Ext.B2 is dated 03/05/2016 whereby it was intimated that the emblem was available with the dealer and he could collect and stick it on the vehicle. The complaint was filed on 02/02/2016. It is admitted by RW1 in the cross examination that the complainant had remitted the amount required for the emblem on 23/09/2015 and the emblem was not supplied to the complainant. So there is no dispute that the opposite parties failed to provide the emblem to the complainant even though they have collected the price.
14. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there was no unreasonable delay in procuring the emblem and it was made available in January 2016 and the availability was intimated to the complainant over phone, but he was not ready to accept it. But there is absolutely nothing in evidence to show that the emblem was made available in January 2016 and this fact was intimated to the complainant. Nothing is produced to show that the opposite parties had contacted the complainant over telephone in January 2016. The exact date of such intimation is not disclosed by the opposite parties. On the other hand, Ext B1 and B2 show that the emblem was available only in March 2016 after filing the complaint and the complainant was intimated about it. As rightly pointed out by the complainant, such a contention of availability of the emblem in January 2016 is raised by the opposite parties at the fag end only to suit the occasion. Admittedly, the price of the emblem was collected on 23/09/2015. The emblem was made available and intimated to the complainant only on 18/03/2016 as can be seen from Ext.B1. Thus there occurred long delay of 6 months in making available the emblem and that too after the complainant approached this commission with the present complaint.
15. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the emblem was not readily available and had to be procured only by placing order. But it may be noted that being the manufacturer and the dealer of the vehicle, it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to provide each and every part to the customers without delay. The opposite parties have no valid explanation for the non delivery of the emblem within a reasonable time after collecting the price. The evidence tendered by PW1, the documents produced and the admission of RW1 would prove that there was deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. The inordinate delay in making available the parts by itself amounts to deficiency of service.
16. It was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the warranty period of the vehicle is over. It is true that the warranty period is exhausted. But the complainant in this case is not making any claim under the warranty.
17. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- since he had to use the vehicle without the emblem ‘crysta’. His case is that he was ridiculed and humiliated by the public. In this connection, it may be noted that the complainant has been using the vehicle for the last 5 years with the emblem ‘crysta’ on the vehicle. For the mere reason that the said emblem was removed recently, it cannot be believed that the public started ridiculing and defaming him.
18. However, it may be noted that the complainant was forced to use the vehicle without the emblem due to deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. He has suffered loss, hardship, and mental agony due to the acts of the opposite parties. He had to approach the opposite parties several times and finally through lawyer notice . There was failure on the part of the opposite parties to take any positive steps till the complainant approached this commission with the present complaint. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant adequately. Though the claim for compensation raised by the complainant appears to be excessive and exorbitant, he is entitled to get a reasonable compensation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum Rs.10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. Being the manufacturer and the dealer, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. Points found accordingly.
19. Point No. 3 : In the light of findings on the above points, the complainant is disposed of as follows:
(a) CC 62/2016 is allowed in part.
(b) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant
as compensation for loss, hardship and mental
agony suffered.
( c) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the
proceedings to the complainant.
(d) The above order shall be complied with within
30 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
(e) The complainant is at liberty to collect the
emblem from the 2nd opposite party, if
he so desires.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in the open commission on this the 26th day of October 2021.
Date of Filing: 02.02.2016 . Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 series – Copy of lawyer notice, postal receipt and
Postal acknowledgement card.
Ext. A2 – Copy the letter dated 28/12/2015 issued by the
2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A3 – Copy of letter dated 06/11/2015 issued by the
2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A4 – Copy of estimate dated 06/10/2015.
Ext. A5 – Copy of the receipts.
Ext. A6 – Copy of the receipts .
Ext. A7 – Copy of the Malayala Manorama daily dated 09/03/2017
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties
Ext. B1 – Copy of the letter dated 18/03/2016.
Ext. B2 – Copy the letter dated 03/05/2016
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – C.T. Muneer (Complainant)
PW2 – Kamal.P.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 - Sachin Hemanth ( Customer Relations Manager).
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent.
