Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/518

Ranjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Toyata Kirloskar Motors - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Pandher Adv.

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:518 dated 07.11.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 17.03.2023.

Ranjit Kaur, age 33 Years wife of Bikramjit Singh, Resident of House No.1251/B/15, Street No.12, Isher Nagar, Behind Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

VERSUS

1. Toyata Kirloskar Motors, Plot No.1, Bidadi, Industrial Area, Ramanagara, Taluk Karnataka, Rural District Bangluru, Karnataka, India-562109 through its M.D.

2. Castle Toyata, ANR Motors Pvt. Ltd. G.T. Road Paragpur, Jalandhar, Punjab-144005 through its Managing Director Smt. Smeema.

3. Globe Toyata, Village Jugiana, Tehsil & District Ludhiana through its M.D./Partner.      

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. J.S. Pandher, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Kanwar Paul Singh, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant approached opposite party No.2, the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 for purchase of vehicle Toyota Etios Liva VXD who represented the complainant that Toyota being top auto manufacturing company, its vehicles have no complaint regarding any defect. Upon the assurance of opposite parties, the complainant purchased Toyota Etios Liva VXD after arranging finance from HDFC Bank Limited, The Mall Road Branch, Ludhiana and in all paid Rs.8,48.706/- to opposite party No.2 as price of the vehicle and received the delivery of vehicle. However, the vehicle started troubling and this fact was told to opposite party No.3 from whom the complainant got free service after 1000KM. The complainant told that there are bubbles in the colour of the handles of front doors of vehicle and there are bubbles in the colours of the vehicle on the left side i.e. both the front and rear door and body of the vehicle and the front glass wiper is not working properly as the lock of the wiper is dislocating but opposite party No.3 neither removed the defect nor paid any heed to complaint of the complainant. The complainant further submitted that even opposite party No.3 charged Rs.520/- vide CR-SER-10094 dated 16.03.2019. She made a complaint to opposite party No.3 regarding removal of the colour of right side rear handle of the door in the month of May 2019 upon which its employees clicked the photos of the vehicle and assured the complainant that they will send the photos to higher authorities i.e. opposite party No.1 but nothing has been done in this regard so far. On 18.05.2019, the vehicle traveled only a distance 3000 KM and the front tyres of the vehicle become defective. The complainant again approached opposite party No.3 and made a complaint regarding defect of the tyre who directed the complainant to approach opposite party No.2 for removal of the said complaint on 08.06.2019. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 for three times at Jalandhar between 08.05.2019 to 08.06.2019. On 08.06.2019, the employees of opposite party No.2  checked the vehicle and told the complainant that the alignment of the vehicle is out but the employees of service station of opposite party No.2 refused to change the handle and to correct the alignment of the vehicle and told her to approach opposite party No.3 at Ludhiana. The complainant further submitted that on 10.06.2019, he approached opposite party No.2 who checked the vehicle thoroughly and the test drive the same, told the complainant that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and it is required to be sent to opposite party No.1. The complainant further mentioned that the average of the vehicle is very low when it runs on G.T. Road from the average which was told/assured by opposite party No.2 who assured at the time of purchase of the vehicle that the average of the vehicle is 20 to 25 KM per liter whereas the average shown by the vehicle was low i.e. only 12 KM per liter. The complainant further requested the employees of opposite party No.2 to change the front tyres of the vehicle who forwarded his complaint to the Goodyear Tyre Company for checking the tyres who made a call to the complainant for the purpose of got checking front tyres in the agency situated in front of Preet Palace on 18.06.2019. The complainant reached in the Goodyear Company where the engineer of the company checked the tyres and told that the tyres have no defect as the same were got damaged due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant demanded P.D.I. (Pre Delivery Inspection) report from opposite party No.2 who refused to deliver the P.D.I. report on 18.06.2019. The complainant made complaint to opposite party No.1 on toll free phone No.18004250001 but nothing has been done by opposite party No.1 to remove the defect in the vehicle. The complainant further submitted that he made ten complaint to opposite party No.1 and 2 on their email ID with request to remove the defect in the vehicle but nothing has been done. The complainant issued a notice dated 14.08.2019 to the opposite parties through Sh. Jarnail Singh Pandher, Advocate but the opposite parties gave a false reply and refused to comply with the request of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that she is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- on account of negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing directions to the opposite parties to change the vehicle Toyota Etios Live VXD or in the alternative to remove the defects in the vehicle and to change front tyres of the vehicle along with Rs.2,00,000/- for negligence of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.                Notice to opposite party No.3 was issued through registered post on 25.11.2019 but opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.01.2020.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of manufacturer of tyre company ‘Good Year India Limited’ as party;  concealment of facts by the complainant; lack of jurisdiction etc. Opposite party No.1 alleged that the complainant has also filed a document Ex. C12 namely ‘Spot Inspection Report’ bearing SR No.959294 relates to tyre manufacturer. Opposite party No.1 alleged that the complaint regarding bubbles in the colours of the handles of front doors of the vehicle and front glass wiper is not working as the lock of the wipers dislocating etc. does not amount to defects or manufacturing defect in the vehicle rather same are false and wrong allegations qua manufacturing defects in the vehicle and without any conclusive evidence.  The delivery of the vehicle was taken after conducting pre-delivery service (PDS) checklist by opposite party No.2 and they found everything in order and complainant also taken the delivery of the vehicle on being satisfied and the complainant brought its vehicle on 21.05.2019 to dealer where it was checked thoroughly and it was observed as under:

 “Service history checked no accidental history

Dealer CGT inspects the vehicle & found rear rhs door handle paint peel off. Checked impact there is no any impact found. Checked all door other area no any paint peeling found. Checked all other all door and handle no any abnormality found as per our c.p.t. observation rear rhs door handle paint peel off by itself.

The detailed investigation report with photographs is produced herewith as Annexure-A. As per the report suspect damage might have happened due to external factors and this is not manufacturing defect.”

Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the complainant has not disclosed the date of visiting & inspection due to best reason known to her. The complainant was and is in the knowledge of inspection and clicking of photos of the vehicle as well as result of such inspection but she deliberately and intentionally concealed such facts as she herself was responsible for such act but was blaming on opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 has never denied for providing warranty obligations and is not liable and responsible for the illegal act and conduct of the complainant. The complainant has violated the warranty terms and obligations while getting services of unauthorized workshop/mechanic or itself who may be acted negligently resulted in paint peel due to use of spurious hard soap/material/cloth etc. for cleaning/washing of  the vehicle and it does not amount to manufacturing defect rather amounts to negligent ware and tear due to non-servicing of the vehicle by the complainant.

                    On merits, opposite party No.1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.1 admitted that on 08.06.2019, wheel alignment was out. It was specifically advised to the complainant to keep adjust tyre pressure in all tyres and for putting two good conditioned tyres in front side and for doing wheel alignment. Tyre pressure was also found not in accordance with specifications which the complainant has not disclosed that she complied with such directions. Opposite party No.1 denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In separate written statement, opposite party No.2 took preliminary objections by assailing the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of manufacturer of tyre company ‘Good Year India Limited’ as party;  concealment of facts by the complainant; lack of jurisdiction etc. Opposite party No.1 alleged that the complainant has also filed a document Ex. C12 namely ‘Spot Inspection Report’ bearing SR No.959294 relates to tire manufacturer. Opposite party No.2 alleged that the complaint regarding bubbles in the colours of the handles of front doors of the vehicle and front glass wiper is not working as the lock of the wiper is dislocating etc. are not amounts to defects or manufacturing defect in the vehicle rather same are false and wrong allegations qua manufacturing defects in the vehicle and without any conclusive evidence. The delivery of the vehicle was taken after conducting pre-delivery service (PDS) checklist by opposite party No.2 and they found everything in order and complainant also taken the delivery of the vehicle on being satisfied and the complainant brought its vehicle on 21.05.2019 to dealer where it was checked thoroughly and it was observed as under:

 “Service history checked no accidental history

Dealer CGT inspects the vehicle & found rear rhs door handle paint peel off. Checked impact there is no any impact found. Checked all door other area no any paint peeling found. Checked all other all door and handle no any abnormality found as per our c.p.t. observation rear rhs door handle paint peel off by itself.

The detailed investigation report with photographs is produced herewith as Annexure-A. As per the report suspect damage might have happened due to external factors and this is not manufacturing defect.”

Opposite party No.2 further alleged that the complainant has not disclosed the date of visiting & inspection due to best reason known to her. The complainant was and is in the knowledge of inspection and clicking of photos of the vehicle as well as result of such inspection but she deliberately and intentionally concealed such facts as she herself was responsible for such act but she was blaming the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 has never denied for providing warranty obligations and is not liable and responsible for the illegal act and conduct of the complainant. The complainant has violated the warranty terms and obligations while getting services of unauthorized workshop/mechanic or itself who might be acted negligently resulted paint peel  due to use of spurious hard soap/material/cloth etc. for cleaning/washing of the vehicle and it does not amount to manufacturing defect rather amounts to negligent wear and tear due to non-servicing of the vehicle by the complainant.

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.2 admitted that on 08.06.2019, wheel alignment was out and it was specifically advised to the complainant to keep adjust tyre pressure in all tyres and for putting two good conditioned tyres in the front side and for doing wheel alignment. Tyre pressure was also found not in accordance with specifications which the complainant has not disclosed that she complied with such directions. Opposite party No.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of opposite party No.1 by reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement.

6.                The complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement of opposite party No.2 by reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement.

7.                In support of her claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the legal notice dated 14.08.2019, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the postal receipts, Ex. C4 is the reply dated 27.082.019 of legal notice dated 14.08.2019, Ex. C5 is the copy of customer receipt dated 19.02.2019 of Rs.6,95,206/-, Ex. C6 is the customer receipt dated nil of Rs.1,23,500/-, Ex C7 is the copy of customer receipt dated 18.02.2019 of Rs.30,000/-, Ex. C8 is the copy of registration certificate  No.PB10-HA-1681, Ex. C9 and Ex. C10 are the copies of receipts  dated 16.03.2019 of Rs.520/- each, Ex. C11 is the copy of diagnostic questionnaire (general report), Ex. C12 is the copy of spot inspection report dated 08.06.2019, Ex. C13, Ex. C15, Ex. C17 to Ex. C28 are the copies of emails, Ex. C14 is the copies of complaints dated 15.06.2019, 18.06.2019 made by the complainant, Ex. C29 is the copy of certificate of insurance, Ex. C30 is the copy of account statement of the complainant, Ex. C31 is the copy of order booking form, Ex. C32 is the copy of welcome letter and closed the evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex. OP1/1 of Sh. Vinay Bhagawan, Deputy Manager, Legal and Secretarial Division of opposite party No.1 along with documents Ex. OP1/A of special power of attorney, Ex. OP1/B is the copy of field information report and closed the evidence. The counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex. OP2/A of Sh. Sachin Sharma, Vice President of opposite party No.2 along with document Ex. OP1/B already exhibited by opposite party No.1 and closed the evidence.

9.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinders, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements, affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.        

10.              The complainant purchased vehicle on 19.02.2019 and within few weeks of the purchase i.e. in March 2019, the complainant noticed bubbles in the colour of the handles of front doors i.e. front and rear door and on the left side of body of the vehicle. The front glass wiper was also not working properly and lock of the vehicle was dislocated. The matter was brought into the notice of opposite party No.3, an authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 but the defect was not removed. In May 2019, the matter was again reported to the opposite parties. On 18.05.2019, the front door of the vehicle also turned defective. On 08.06.2019, the alignment of the vehicle had gone out. On 10.06.2019, opposite party No.2 checked the vehicle and told the complainant that the vehicle of the complainant is having some manufacturing defect. The complainant also experienced drastic reduction in the running average of the vehicle per liter.

11.              From the above said facts, it is clear that the complainant had been continuously visiting the opposite parties with regard to removal of the aforesaid shortcomings. The contention of the opposite parties that peeling off colour is due to normal wear and tear is devoid of any merit. The colour of the vehicle is not expected to fade or peel off within few weeks of the purchase of the vehicle. The opposite parties cannot shrug of their responsibility with regard to tyres and alignment just by advising the complainant to keep the tyre pressure in accordance with specifications. The complainant has also placed a series of emails exchanged between the complainant and opposite party No.1 and 2 and also served a legal notice. The opposite party No.1 and 2 were required to act promptly and effectively in redressing the grievance of the complainant but they have failed to do so and as such, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 initially had tried to remove the defect but later on he referred the complainant to opposite party No.2, the place from where the complainant had purchased the vehicle and as such, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate, if opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to repair the vehicle comprehensively to the satisfaction of the complainant free of costs and further to pay composite cost of Rs.10,000/-.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 and 2 to repair the vehicle comprehensively to the satisfaction of the complainant free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall further pay a composite costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Ranjit Kaur Vs Toyota Kirloskar Motors                     CC/19/518

Present:       Sh. J.S. Pandher, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh. Kanwar Paul Singh, Advocate for OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 and 2 to repair the vehicle comprehensively to the satisfaction of the complainant free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall further pay a composite costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.