Orissa

Debagarh

CC/72/2019

Nishani Behera, aged about 45 years, W/O- Er. Chittaranjan Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, FIELD MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

01 Nov 2024

ORDER

                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH

C.C. No.72 of 2019

Nishani Behera, W/O.Er. Chittaranjan Pradhan, aged 45 years, At-Khaliposhi, P.O/P.S– Kundheigola,Dist. – Deogarh, at present at Khaparsahi, word No – 1, P.O/P.S/Dist- Deogarh

…………..  Complainant

Vrs.

1.    The proprietor, Field Motor Private ltd., Plot No – 2514, N.H.-5, Telenganapenth, Cuttack – 754001

2.    The Manufacturer, TOYOTA Kirlosker Motor Ltd., Plot No -1, Bidadi Industrial Area, P.O – Bidadi, District - Ramanagara,    

        Karnataka, 562109.   

      Advocate for the Complainant.                          ………….     None

     Advocate for the O.Ps.                                         ………….     Sri P.C. Mishra

Present

1.         Sri U.N.Purohit,       President

2.         Sri P.K.Nayak           Member

Date of Filing Dt.18.12.2019

Date of Hearing Dt.04.10.2024

Date of Order Dt.01.11.2024

J U D G E M E N T

By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.

The complainant filed complaint U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The gist of the complaint is that she is resident of Deogarh town and the OP‘s carries their business all over India, and the complainant claim compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence the complaint is within pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this commission. She  purchased a new INNOVA CRYSTA 2.4Z ( white Pearl Crystal Shine) of TOYOTA make having Engine No – 2GDA054258 and chassis No – MBJAB3EMX02508825 from O.P. No.1 with a payment of Rs.20,19,184.57 to words ex show room price vide invoice No -2016-712. The vehicle had manufacturing warranty for 3 years or 1, 00,000 KM whichever is earlier from the date of purchase.

1.         She was availing periodic service from authorised service station of OP No 1 as per instruction of user manual. While  she used the vehicle observed unexpected wear and tear of tyre within few days after running of 18,000 KM. she reported the same to the authorised service centre of OP’s who assured to remove defect and appoint technical person to remove the defect and also replaced the damaged tyres free of cost within warranty period and during the year 2017-18 she had been forced to purchased 4 No of tyres and suffered huge financial loss due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle and unexpected quick damage of tyres.

2.         She  took her vehicle to the Espirit Toyota servicing centre where the technician found the front inner side  of tyres were unevenly consumed without covering deserved mileage and the odometer reading of the vehicle on the said date was noted 59,832 kms since the date of purchase.

3.         The technical expert suggested to replace the tyres and fixed new tyres accordingly she replaced the tyre after completion of wheel balancing and other adjustments by the technical personnel of the OP’s .The defects persist for long period and it was habit of the technician of OP to advice for replacement of tyres time to time without removing the manufacturing defect and put her financial loss. The tyres of the vehicle replaced number of times due to premature damage. The bill and invoice of said replacement filed by her.

4.         It was the condition of user manual the tyre should run at least 45,000 KM but a matter of surprise the tyre damaged number of times after running 2000 to 3000 Km approximately and she had repeatedly complaint to the OP about the defects. At last the service personnel admit the manufacturing defects exist in said vehicle for which the tyres are not giving proper mileage. She spent huge amount to remove the defect and the OP failed to remove the defect since 2016 and only assured to remove the defect through technician but all the efforts failed. So she claimed to the OP to provide defect free condition by replacing the entire front tyre line assembly to get rid of premature tyre damages.

5.         The O.Ps are playing with her sentiments ,harassed  and compel her to repeated visit  the show room  from Deogarh to Cuttack, Bhubaneswar number of times for which the O.Ps caused harm to her sentiment, health and financial condition by putting her in embracing condition.

6.         She represented number of time to the O.Ps but they did not solve the problem but kept silent to her grievance for that she bound to keep the vehicle in idle condition and unable to utilise the same. She forced to avail hired vehicle to meet her necessity and thereby suffered huge financial loss for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the O.Ps.

7.         To prove her case, she has filed Xerox copy of sale invoice, smart card & RC particulars, receipt of tyres purchase, job card issued by O.P. No.1 service charges paid to O.P. No.1, the user manual, vehicle alignment reports, warranty registration card and affidavit evidence. And claiming relief to provide defect free condition of Innova car by replacing the entire front tyre line assembly, and Rs.3,00,000/- compensation for damages and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation.

8.         On the other hand O.P. No.1 set exparte on 28.5.2021 the O.P. No.2 appear through advocate file scan copy of version and V.Nama without seal and signature of O.P. No.2 in original and that was not accepted. To rectify the irregularity the O.P. No.2 directed to appear personally or through their representative, the concerned advocate appeared and file time petition for removal of irregularity but subsequently remain absent inspite of given sufficient opportunity. However the case was posted for decide on merit as per provision of CP Act. The scan copy of version filed by O.P. No.2 taken to consideration for just decision of the case and the gist of the version is that the O.P. No.2 denied and disputes the manufacturing defect. Further case of the O.P. No.2 is that the damaging of tyre depends upon its own warranty and guarantee and the manufacturer of vehicle is not responsible. The O.P. No.2 admitted in para 7 of version that the complainant raised complaint regarding unusual wear and tear of the front tyre of the vehicle to the O.P. No.1 within few days of covering 18000 to 20000 K.M . the issue was positively received by O.P. No.1and the front tyre of the vehicle were replace free of cost. Further on several occasion complainant approached the O.P. No.1 for the same issue and the O.P. No.1resolved the same time to time.

9.         The O.P. on receiving repeated complaint appointed Bridgestone India private limited to conduct thorough inspection of tyre tube on two occasion submitted report dated 6.11.2017 and 6.12.2017 wherein it was clearly stated that the threads of tyre worn asymmetrically due to faulty alignment of wheels there is unusual wear and tear and the report specifically clarified that there is no manufacturing defect.

10.       Further the complainant not following the manufacturer recommendation for tyre maintenance and the complainant was also not done service on the interval of schedule time which might have also resulted the unusual wear and tear of tyres and poor maintenance of tyre pressure and other things along with negligent driving of the vehicle etc. The vehicle has been sold after successful completion of various test by authorising agency established under M.V. Act, so the manufacturer is not liable. The O.Ps. have no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice, no harm caused to the complainant. The amounts of compensation claimed by the complainant are purely whimsical without legal basis and liable to be dismissed.

On the rival pleading of the parties the following questions needs to answer

1. Is the complaint within jurisdiction of this commission?
2. Is the complainant a consumer?
3. Is there any manufacturing defect or any other defect removed by the O.P within the period of warranty?
4. Is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the OP?
5. Is the complainant entitled to relief claimed?

For proper adjudication of the case all the question taken together

1.         To substantiate the claim of both the parties it appears that the complainant filed affidavit evidence and documentary evidence as per list. On the other hand the OP No 1 received notice and did not appear to challenge the claim of the complainant and set ex-party. The OPNo2 only filed scan copy of version and did not file any document relied on the version. He also did not participate in hearing filing affidavit evidence and original version inspite of giving opportunity prior to hearing.

2.         As it appears from the complaint, affidavit evidence and documents the complainant has purchased the INNOVA CRYSTA 2.4Z by paying consideration fromO.P. No.1, manufactured by O.P. No.2 which is admitted by the O.Ps. The complainant is also resident of Deogarh district and the O.P. not challenged the jurisdiction.Hence the complaint is within the jurisdiction of this commission. The complainant purchased the vehicle for her personal use of vehicle so the complainant is also consumer and the O.P. No.1 dealer and the O.P. No.2 manufacturer providing services to their customer through different authorised service centre.

3.         As it appears from the service records filed by the complainant and affidavit evidence, the complainant has taken the vehicle for service as per the service manual regularly which is admitted by the OP.s. The service record disclosed that the complainant reported regularly about unusual wear and tear of the front tyre due to defect of front tyre line assembly within the period of warranty which also admitted by the OP in his version and supplied free tyre for the first time, there after the complainant again and again reported the same to the OP No 1 who also conducted inspection of the vehicle through agency Bridgestone India Pvt ltd. And found unusual wear and tear.  The complainant at the advice of technician of OP changed tyre number of times but the OP failed to solve the problem. The OP in spite of finding repeated defect did not provide proper service to make it functional in defect free condition, rather the technician of the OP change the tyre number of times without removing the defect putting the complainant in financial loss and mental stress which caused harm to the complainant. As it appears from the evidence affidavit and complaint, the complainant could not ply the luxury vehicle apprehending huge financial loss for that she also hired private vehicle for personal use. The OP did not file any rebuttal evidence disputing the claim of the complainant either by filing documentary evidence or affidavit evidence. The facts mentioned in the version the OP failed to prove his case by producing relevant documents rather he admitted the defect of the vehicle as claimed by the complainant. Further the complainant has filed the complaint due to defect of front tyre line assembly, but the OP case is on the damage of the tyres which is not the case of the complainant , to divert the liability the OP taken a suitable pleading.  So in our opinion there is manufacturing defects within the period of warranty  and the OP not provide proper service by removing defect of the vehicle by adopting unfair trade practice and negligence in service.

4.         In view of above finding we accept the claim of complainant and the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed. The OP,s are jointly and severally liable for the same.

          Hence we direct the O.Ps. to make the vehicle defect free condition byreplacing the entire front tyre line assembly of the vehicle with the satisfaction of the complainant or provide a new defect free vehicle in exchange of defect vehicle or return the consideration paid by the complainant. Further the O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.2.50 lakhs as compensation for the harm caused to the complainant and pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation within a period of 2 month failing which the O.Ps.will Pay 10% interest from the date of order till final payment.

           Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the CONFONET for perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

Dated the 1st day of November 2024

        I agree                                          Typed to my dictation

                                                             and corrected by me.

Sri P.K. Nayak                           Sri U.N.Purohit

 Member                                                      President

  Dt.01.11.2024                                       Dt.01.11.2024