Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/253/2018

Rajiv Jakhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Raghav Goel Adv. & Atul Goyal Adv.

14 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	253 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	02.05.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	14.01.2022

 

 

 

 

Rajiv Jakhar s/o Sh.Harish Chander, r/o VPO Maujgarh, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited, Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bidadi District Ramnagar, PIN Code 582109 Karnataka through  its Authorised Representative/General Manager/ Managing Director

2]  EM PEE Motors, Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177 H, Industrial Area, Phasse-1, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative/Signatory.

3]  Pioneer Toyota Dabwali Road, Bhatinda Punjab PIN Code 151001 through its Authorised Representative/Signatory.

     ….. Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER                         

 

 

For Complainant :  Sh.Raghav Goel, Advocate

For OP(s)         :  Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1

   Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.2 & 3.

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant purchased a New Toyota Corolla Altis Car from OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, in July, 2015 for an amount of Rs.17,78,024.46 (Ann.C-1), carrying warranty of 3 years or 1,00,000 kms. whichever is earlier from the date of purchase and got it registered vide Regd. No.PB-22-M-7374 (Ann.C-2).  It is averred that the complainat got the car in question serviced from the authorized service station of the OPs well in time.  It is also averred that on 23.2.2017 when the complainant was driving the car in question from Jaipur to Abohar, the speedometer of the car indicted “Engine Oil Low”, so the complainant packed the car and sought assistance of OP No.3.  The vehicle was taken to OP No.3 on 25.2.2017, who found that the engine oil remaining the car was only 1.5 lts., so he added 2.4 liters of engine oil to complete the requirement of 3.9  lts of engine oil in the car and further added another extra top up of 400 ML and then the car was retuned on 8.3.2017 (Ann.C-4).  It is further averred that the complainant got the third paid service of the car done from OP N0o.3 on 26.6.2017 when it completed 29876 kms and in the Invoice it is ment9ioned that the Engine Oil was checked & found to be OK (Ann.C-5).  However, on 25.9.2017, the car again indicated the sign “Engine Oil Low”, so the car was again taken to OP No.3, who changed its Vaccup Pump free of cost in order to resolve the said problem (Ann.C-6).  It is stated that when the complainant sent his vehicle for fourth service when it completed 39,522 kms,  he was shocked to notice that OP No.3 in its observation mentioned that on drainage of the engine oil, it was found to be 2.5 ltres and thereafter they added another 1.4 ltres to complete the minimum requirement of altis car have 3.9 Lts. Engine oil (Ann.C-7).  It is also stated that the time & again problem of “Engine Oil Low” in the car in question, despite getting it timely serviced and filling of required engine oil, shows a defect in the engine of the car.  As such, the complainant sent legal notices to OPs No.1 & 2 (Ann.C-8 to C-10).  It is submitted that less engine oil problem was again noticed on further service of the car on 22.3.2018 with OP No.3 when it covered only 45698 kms. i.e. on running 5000 kms after the third service at 39522 kms. (Ann.C-11).  It is also submitted that despite legal notice as well as intimation on service helpline of OP No.1, no official/engineer of the OP Company checked/inspected the vehicle in question to set right the defect, but still the OPs sent email dated 4.4.2018 stating that as per their investigation done by technical team for abnormal oil consumption issue, it reveals no manufacturing defect in the car and recommended to get the vehicle inspected after every 5000/- kms. or 6 months whichever is earlier (Ann.C-12).  It is pleaded that the OPs have fleeced the complainant by selling the low quality engine as the engine is defective and showed the abnormal oil consumption defect in less than 18 months of its purchase and thus amounting to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint. 

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1.  It is stated that Ann.C-12 has been sent by OPs No.2 & 3 and from its bare perusal, it shows that the alleged Engine Oil Consumption is due to the rash & negligent driving of the complainant himself and not due to any manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant.  It is stated that vide email dated 4.4.2018, it has been specifically intimated that the engine oil consumption depends on driving at high engine speed, driving with heavy load, driving while accelerating and de-accelerating frequently, driving leaving the engine idle for a long time and driving frequently through heavy traffic and others. It is also stated that as per invoice dated 26.6.2017, it has been stated that Engine Oil Consumption was checked and the same was found OK. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was duly inspected and it was found that there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OPs No.2 & 3 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case as matter of record, stated that there was no defect what to talk of manufacturing defect, because the problem had occurred due to normal wear & tear of the use of vehicle in question and the question of low engine oil is not a manufacturing defect, hence the complainant has no case because Engine oil never comes to at a lower point and it remains in level as per terms.  It is submitted that there was no question of less engine oil of the car, as alleged by the complainant, as it is a general job. It is denied that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect.  Pleading no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3, it is prayed that the complaint qua them be dismissed.             

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for OPs and have gone through entire documents & evidence on record including written arguments.

5]       Perusal of the file establishes that there is adequate evidence on record to suggest & confirm the abnormal oil consumption in the engine of the vehicle in question.  This problem has surfaced intermittently, which is always a matter of worry and frustration for the consumer, who has spent huge amount to buy a new car for his happiness and comfort.  This fact is also substantiated by the Expert Report (Memo No.PEC/MED/1851, dated 17.12.2018), prepared & submitted by the Officer of Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Sector 12, Chandigarh i.e. Prof. Ankit Yadav, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engg. Deptt. PEC Chandigarh, Dr.Sushant Samir, Professor & Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I. who inspected & test driven the vehicle in question.  In this report, it is observed that “Further on perusal of records, inspection, and discussion with both the p arties the committee is of the opinion that there is a problem of engine oil being low after travelling for 2000 Kms, which is not desirable and can be rectified.”

6]       The Opposite Parties in their defence have only stated some theoretical analysis regarding abnormal engine oil consumption in the vehicle in question, which shows one-sided presumption regarding the probable cause of abnormal consumption and is not a tangible evidence to accept their defence or justification regarding the defect in the vehicle in question.  Therefore it is established that the OPs have supplied the car in question having defective engine and hence indulged into unfair trade practice and also remained deficient in service by not redressing grievance of the complainant even after the defect in the vehicle was brought to their notice.

7]       Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are not only found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant but also indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant stands allowed against the Opposite Parties with direction to replace the engine assembly of the vehicle in question with new one and carrying out necessary repair or replacement of part making the vehicle defect free & roadworthy, without charging anything from the complainant.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental agony & harassment due to supply of defective car, apart from payment of Rs.10000/- towards litigation expenses.  The above compensation amount is inclusive of the amount to be borne by the complainant to get the Registration Certificate of the Vehicle in question corrected or newly issued, as the case may be, incorporating therein the new engine number of the vehicle, after the change of engine assembly of the vehicle in question by the OPs, as ordered above. 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.50,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.

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

Announced                                                     

14^th January, 2022                                                    sd/- 

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER