Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/220/2014

Hemant Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Totoya Kirloskar Motor Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Sharma & RAkhi Sharma

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/220/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	02/04/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	18/02/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Hemant Saini s/o Sh. N.S. Saini, R/o H.No.599, Ph-3A, Mohali – 160059, also at H.No.932, Sector 40, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs

 

[1] Toyota Kirloskar Motor Limited, Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, P.O. Bidadi, Ram Nagar District, Karnataka, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

 

[2] Pioneer Toyota, 177-H, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

….Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH.P.L. AHUJA              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Sachin Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.

            Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

            Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy Counsel for

            Sh. S.R. Bansal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased a Toyota Corolla Altis (Diesel) car from Opposite Party No.2 on 23.03.2012 for Rs.11,86,120/- (Payment receipts Annexure C-1 to C-5). It has been alleged that right from the beginning, the engine of the car stared consuming engine oil which was duly reported to the Opposite Parties on 31.5.2012 (Annexure C-8), but nothing tangible was done. It has been averred that after the first service at 10000 Km the consumption of the engine oil was measured to be 800 Ml, while after second and third service at 20000 and 30000, the consumption was 1200 Ml and 1275 Ml respectively. Thereafter, another Complaint was submitted to the Opposite Party No.2 on 1.3.2013, but nothing was done to redress the grievance of the Complainant (Annexure C-9 to C-22). The Complainant also approached the Opposite Party No.1 through e-mails dated 21.3.2013 and 22.3.2013 (Annexure C-23 to C-25), but to no avail. In these circumstances, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that each time the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.2, the concern of the Complainant was duly checked and inspected. Post such inspection, the Complainant was duly informed that there was no abnormality found in the functioning of the vehicle, engine and engine oil consumption in specific and the said consumption levels were well within the acceptable standards prescribed. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has pleaded that the vehicle was being attended by its Technical staff and thereafter delivered to the Complainant to his entire satisfaction. It has been asserted that as and when the vehicle was checked, some engine oil was top up as per terms and conditions of the warranty clause which was not a manufacturing defect and there was no level of oil as alleged by the Complainant. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.  

 

8.      It is evident from the receipts Annex.C-1 to Annex.C-5 that the Complainant purchased one Toyota Corolla Altis car from Opposite Party No.2 on 23.3.2012 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. Annex.C-8 is the copy of the Complaint dated 31.5.2012 according to which the Complainant informed the Opposite Parties regarding the problem of abnormal consumption of the engine oil in his vehicle with specific mention of the Complaint number already done on their Toll Free Number. Annex.C-9 to Annex.C-21 are various invoices vide which various services were done on the vehicle in question. The grievance of the Complainant is that inspite of various reminders the problem in his car was not rectified/ attended by the Opposite Parties seriously.

 

9.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) is that it being manufacturer is not responsible for the acts and omissions of Opposite Party No.2 (Dealer). Opposite Party No.1 has further submitted in para no.6 of its written statement that the present Complaint does not lie in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

 

10.      As per Opposite Party No.2, the vehicle in question was attended by its technical staff as and when the same was brought to it. As per foot notes mentioned over invoices Annex.C-9 to Annex.C-22 everything was made clear to the Complainant in his presence.

 

11.      After thoroughly considering the facts of the case, initially let us discuss the invoices Annex. C-10, Annex.C-12, Annex. C-13 and Annex.C-16.  

 

12.      Over the invoice Annex.C-10 dated 1.6.2012 there is mention “Engine oil was 400 ml less than the required quantity which reflects no engine oil consumption”. Further, in invoice Annex.C-12 dated 5.7.2012 there is mention “Engine oil was 800 ml which reflects no engine oil”. Thereafter, Annex.C-13 dated 16.10.2012 clarifies as “Engine oil consumption CHK – less, 1200 ml Eng. Oil Qty after drain out”. Furthermore, over Annex. C-16, again there is mention of “Engine Oil consumption CHK less 1175 ml….”. So many services specifically with query regarding the abnormal consumption of engine oil point out that Opposite Parties were reminded time and again by the Complainant with regard to his grievance as earlier done by sending Complaint dated 31.5.2012 (Annex.C-8) at very first time which is within period of less than even two months of its purchase.

 

13.      The next question to be considered is whether the Complaint lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. This is very much clear from Annex.C-1 to Annex. C-5 (the payment receipts) that the vehicle in question was purchased from Chandigarh only. Therefore, the present Complaint lies very well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

 

14.      No doubt, as per Annex. C-9 to Annex. C-21 every time the service was given to the Complainant, but OPs have not mentioned clearly anywhere that the issue of the abnormal consumption of the oil of the car in question has been sorted out. As per the Opposite Parties, they are not in the knowledge of the Complaint Annex.C-8, but their response Annex.C-24 dated 22.3.2013 is their own answer to the e-mail Annex.C-23 dated 21.3.2013 sent by the Complainant regarding his grievance. Interestingly, over this e-mail Annex.C-23 there is mention of previous Complaints also, but the same are not specifically denied by the Opposite Parties in their response i.e. Annex.C-24.

 

15.      Moreover, when there is specific mention over Annex.C-28 relevant page of the Owner’s Manual and Warranty Booklet, under the column of Engine Oil Consumption that if your vehicle consumes more than 1.0L every 1000 Km (600 miles), contact your Toyota dealer, then what wrong was done by the Complainant to get it checked vide invoices Annex.C-10, Annex.C-12, Annex.C-13 and Annex.C-16. Further in this document only it is mentioned under the column “Notice” that (a) “To prevent serious engine damage, check the oil level on a regular basis”

(b) “When replacing the engine oil, avoid over filling as the engine could be damaged”

 

16.      It is very much clear from the documents on record along with various Complaints that the engine oil consumption was not normal which was intimated to the Opposite Parties within the warranty period. But the act of the Opposite Parties in non-responding to the same even being leading and prominent manufacturer/ dealer proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.

 

17.      It cannot even be the case of any company that a buyer of a new car would repeatedly go to the workshop of the Dealer/ Manufacturer with flimsy Complaints because doing so entails consumption of considerable effort, time and money to the buyer. There is no reason to hold that the Complainant did not suffer physical harassment and mental agony as well as expenditure of time and money in the process of getting the defects in his new car attended to repeatedly. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Complainant ought to be suitably compensated.

 

18.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To replace the whole engine assembly of the car of the complainant with fresh warranty;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

19.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from complying with the directions in sub-para [a] & [c] above.

 

20.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18^th February, 2015                                        

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER