Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/779/2015

Jyot Preet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajshekhar

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/779/2015
Date of Institution	:	20/11/2015
Date of Decision	:	20/03/2018

 

Jyot Preet Kaur d/o Sh. Paramjit Singh r/o H.No.43, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Regd. Off. & Works : Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bidadi, Ramnagar District, Karnataka – 562109, through its Authorised person.

2.     Em Pee Motors Limited, Authorised Dealer of Toyota, Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177 H, Industrial Area, Phase – 1, Chandigarh, through its authorised Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajshekhar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. S.R. Bansal, Counsel for OP-2

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The allegations, in brief, are father of the complainant, Sh. Paramjit Singh gifted a Toyota car, model Etios HB, purchased from OP-2, authorised dealer of OP-1. The said car was purchased for a sale consideration of Rs.5,30,887.54 and it was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance. The unfair trade practice and deficiency in service alleged is, OPs had pretended having one of the best mileages in the section in the market with approximately 17 Km/l.  However, the said promise proved to be hollow from the very beginning.  The complainant faced serious problems with the car due to its poor pick up and very low mileage of approximately 6 Km/l. The car developed problem of high fuel consumption, stalling while taking turn at crossings or roundabouts and never exceeded 100 km/hr in its daily run. On being apprised, OP-2 sent someone to complainant’s residence with a gift not to downgrade the grading and that the problems would be resolved at the earliest. It was also claimed, performance of the car would improve after 1000 kms. running, but, there was no improvement.  It is the case, the complainant sent her car with the driver to OP-2 on 10.11.2014 for its first due service.  Promises were made functioning of the car would improve. Finally on 22.8.2015, OP-2 asked the complainant’s father to bring the car for test drive by its technician. However, the speed of the car could barely touched 100 km/h. Again the defect of the car was attended on 24.8.2015 on receipt of transmission parts. The car was got checked on 25.8.2015 and it was told that the car’s flywheel was also defective.  The repair work was completed and the complainant was told that the said car can be collected.  Another test drive was done on 29.8.2015. It is the case, unfair trade practice has been employed and on these grounds, prayer made to replace the defective vehicle with a new one or pay the total amount of installments, besides compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the present consumer complaint. 
2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint independently and filed its reply. It is the case, OP-1 is the manufacturer and relationship between OP-1 & OP-2 are on principal to principal basis.  Territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is attacked and it is averred that the complaint is not maintainable. It is the case, there was no defect in the vehicle. It is further the case, when the vehicle reported at the dealership, it was found that clutch, pressure plate and flywheel had worn out due to clutch over riding. It is stated that material facts have been concealed. Even on 31.8.2015, the work was done under goodwill by the OPs. No expert report for manufacturing defect produced.   Hence, the complainant not entitled for any compensation. 
3.         OP-2 has also filed separate and independent written reply claiming there is no deficiency in service or negligence and the complaint being not maintainable.  Other averments denied. However, it is not denied that the complainant visited many a times with such like complaints.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         Parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and have also produced documents on record. Our conclusions from the adduced material in the form of affidavits, documents and pleadings are as follows :-
5.         Per record, it is the admitted case of the complainant, being consumer, car in question was purchased through the dealer/OP-2 and manufactured by OP-1.  There is no dispute with regard to these facts.  It is the case in the complaint, numerous times the vehicle was taken to the OPs highlighting the defects viz. poor pick up and very low mileage of 6 km/l contrary to the declaration of the OPs. OPs in their replies have also admitted that many a times the vehicle was brought with such like complaints.  However, on examination, much defect was not found and the complainant was apprised thereof as such. Visits and time and again inspection of the vehicle are not disputed facts as per the consumer complaint and replies filed thereof.
6.         We shall refer with regard to the mechanical defects in the vehicle. On the request of the complainant, expert committee comprising of Associate Prof., W.I. and Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh was constituted and they examined the vehicle. Per their report, the vehicle has smooth running at all the gear ratios and has average of 11.648 km/liter without air-conditioning and in nutshell their opinion was, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Thus, outrightly in view of the experts report, it has to be accepted that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
7.         We have already highlighted that many times visits were paid to the OPs and complaints were lodged with regard to its poor pick up, mileage of the vehicle was low and also there was excessive fuel consumption. The pointed problems did exist at initial stages of vehicle.  A person or say a consumer will not unnecessarily visit the trader if there was no problem at the initial stage. Definitely the complainant has been put to inconvenience and rather the OPs have failed to convince the complainant and there seems to be deficiency in service at starting stage to this effect. In case Raj Bala Vs. Managing Director Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2013 (4) CPR 521, the Hon’ble National Commission in paragraphs 6 & 7 held as under :-

“6.    The learned counsel has cited a number of rulings given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Commission in support of his arguments. It has been observed by the National Commission in “Premanchal Motors V. Ramdass and Anr.”, as reported in [II (2009) CPJ 98 (NC)] that the abandonment of a new vehicle soon after its purchase or after repairs, at the premises of the manufacturer or the dealer concerned was no a prudent conduct on the part of the consumer.  In “Maruti Udyog Limited V. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anr.”, [III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC)], the National Commission observed that the manufacturing defect is a fundamental basic defect and to prove such a defect, opinion of expert is necessary. The onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect was on the complainant as observed by the National Commission in “Classic Automobiles V. Lila Nand Mishra and Anr.”, [I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)].  In “Maruti Udyog Limited V. Casino Dias”, [IV (2009) CPJ 144 (NC)], it was observed by the National Commission that consumers cannot throw their weight around and be adamant to decide on their own that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle without any supporting evidence or justification. The learned counsel argued that in the present case, there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect and hence the present petition should be dismissed.

7.     We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The District Forum relying upon the report of Manbir Singh Suri surveyor, observed that there was no inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. They, however, awarded a sum of `30,000/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of `10,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant for taking the vehicle to the workshop frequently within a short period. The State Commission after obtaining report from two experts came to the same conclusion and dismissed appeal, relying upon the statement of the respondents that they were ready to provide service of the vehicle in question free of charge, if taken to the workshop.”

The Hon’ble National Commission in similarly situated case, where there was no inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle, had awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- alongwith litigation expenses for inconvenience caused to the consumer, though other reliefs were declined as no mechanical defect was found in the vehicle.

8.         Basing our conclusion on the ratio of the precedent of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service in beginning and mental agony, inconvenience  and harassment caused to her;
2. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
20/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President