BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/16 of 8.1.2010 Decided on: 9.5.2011 Ashok Kumar C/o Jiwan Singh, H.No.159/3, Toba Baba Dhiana, Near Anardana Chow, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. 10th Floor, “Canberra Block” # 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001, through its General Manager. 2. Pioneer Toyota, EM Pee Motors Ltd.,C-154-156,Industrial Area, Focal Point, Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Smt.Kusum Sood, Advocate For opposite parties: None. ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT The complainant has brought this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) alleging that he had purchased the car make Innova bearing registration No.PB-11-AH-8876. He had taken his car to Haridwar on 2.11.2009.He stayed at night on 2.11.2009 with his friend Rajesh Chowdhary at Satyam Vihar Haridwar having parked the car outside the residence of his friend. The car was locked. At night the watch man of his friend supervised the premises. At about 3.30am on the intervening night of 2/3.11.2009, watch man was shocked to find that the car make Innova of the complainant had suddenly got engulfed in fire who informed Rajesh Chowdhary and also the complainant. It was found by the complainant that the car had got burnt from the front side and the dash board of the car had completely been burnt. With great efforts the fire was extinguished. The complainant reported the matter to the police at Haridwar.The surveyor of the insurance company was also called. 2. The complainant had brought the car back to Patiala and the same was handed over for repair to op no.2.The complainant got the car checked by a mechanic and who informed that the car had burnt because of a manufacturing defect in the same. The car got burnt because of a short circuit in the ACM of the car, despite the car being parked in a switched off condition. However, opno.2 refused to compensate the complainant in respect of loss suffered by the complainant. 3. It is further averred that the complainant approached the ops for the replacement of the car but to no effect. Hence this complaint for a direction to the ops to replace the car or to refund the price of the same with interest @18% per annum; to pay the amount incurred by the complainant in the repair of the car and also to pay Rs.3lacs by way of compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant including the costs of litigation. 4. The notice of the complaint was given to the ops, who on appearance filed their separate written statements. 5. In the written statement filed by op no.1 it has raised certain legal objections, interalia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the op and the complainant is abusing the process of law'; that the insurance company has not been impleaded as a party even though the surveyor was got appointed and that the complaint is not maintainable because the car was properly inspected by the engineer of the manufacturer but the same was taken back on 8.12.2009.As regards the facts of the complaint, it is averred by the ops that although the car had been purchased in the year 2006, the same was out of warranty and this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant for the reason best known to him. He also failed to disclose the date of the purchase as also the name of the dealer from whom he purchased the same. 6. It is further averred by this op that the vehicle was received by op no.2 on 26.11.2009 and the same was thoroughly examined by the officials of op no.1 on 3.12.2009.Upon thoroug inspection it was found that the fire had taken place due to short circuit in the wiring of non genuine accessories fitted in the vehicle. There were no manufacturing defects. The vehicle was fitted with non genuine accessories such as stereo, amplifier, LCDTV, cabin light, externally fitted electronic chip and resin flooring etc. by a local garage. It was further found that wiring was tampered by the local non Toyota technician. Thus, the complainant is guilty of mis guiding the Forum.Guarantee provided by op no.1 on the vehicle excludes improper adjustments or repairs by non authorized Toyota and /or personnel. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the op.Ultimately this op prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 7. In the written statement filed by op no.2, it has also raised the legal objections interalia, that the insurance company has not been joined as a party and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As regards the facts of the case on merits, this op has also averred that the vehicle was received in the workshop of op on 7.11.2009 vide job card and a proper inspection there of was made. The complainant had taken back the delivery by refusing the job card on 8.12.2009 and thereafter brought the present complaint which is said to be false and frivolous. This op has also taken up the plea that the vehicle was out of warranty, the same having been purchased in the year 2006.Ultimately this op also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 8. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant produced in evidence the sworn affidavit, Ex.C1 of the complainant Ashok Kumar alongwith documents, Exs.C2 to C13 and closed his evidence. 9. On behalf of the ops their learned counsel produced in evidence the sworn affidavit, Ex.R1 of Mr.Surinder Saini alongwith documents, Exs.R2 to R6 and closed the evidence. 10. The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the complainant, none having appeared on behalf of the ops and gone through the evidence/record on the file. 11. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because first of all he failed to allege as to when and from whom he had purchased the car. It was stated at bar by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had purchased the car from a person who had already purchased the car from dealer of op no.1.In this regard she made a reference to, Ex.C2 the photo copy of the registration certificate of the car which would go to show that the original owner of the car was one Sunil s/o Shish Pal r/o Patran and the complainant got the same transferred in his favour on 7.4.2008. 12. The complainant has also not disclosed as to whether the vehicle was under a warranty on 2.11.2009 when the same caught fire abruptly at night. 13. In this regard, it was submitted by Smt.Kusum Sood,the learned counsel of the complainant that the complainant has approached this Forum to seek the compensation/replacement of the car from the ops because of a manufacturing defect in the car in as much as the car had caught fire when lying parked in a switched off position. In this regard she also made a reference to,Ex.C5, the report obtained by the complainant from Er.Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor. Nevertheless Er.Rajesh Aggarwal, has submitted in his report “(1) I have checked the electrical working of the vehicle relating to the fittings of the genuine or non genuine accessories if it existed at the time of the fire in the vehicle. The wiring was found to be un affected and I have taken a close up photo of the same. It proves that the genuine or non genuine accessories fitted at the time of the fire does not play any role in the cause of fire. (2) A direct wire from the battery to ECM without fuse is provided by the manufacturer .In this wire 12 volts supply remains for 24 hours even when the ignition switch is cut off, Also a thin wire gets heated and probability of short circuiting may arise from there. (3) Also a wire from starting switch to a coupler goes without any fuse and the probability of the fire spark may also be from there.” Ultimately in the concluding para it is reported that the fire may be the result of some weak points of the design by the manufacturer . 14. Then it was submitted by Smt.Kusum Sood, the learned counsel for the complainant that although the ops have taken up the plea that the car was beyond the warranty period but in the letter,Ex.C13 dated 9.12.2009 written by the Deputy Manager-Customer Relations of op no.1 to the complainant, no exception regarding the car being beyond warranty period was taken and they informed the complainant that the investigations had revealed that the fire had arisen due to short circuiting in wiring of non genuine accessories fitted in the vehicle and that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 14. In this regard, it was submitted by Smt.Kusum Sood, the learned counsel for the complainant that in Ex.R4, the copy of vehicle fire hazard check sheet, under item no.2 Hearing and part(4) there of relating to “vehicle related data” in place of optional equipment A/c(Toyota Genuine parts- other make) –Toyota genuine has been mentioned and in respect of locally installed parts. “No” has been recorded , going to show that no non genuine accessories were fitted in the vehicle. 15. The complainant has not denied the electrical wiring for accessories to have been fitted as shown in the photograph,Ex.C10.There is the deposition made by Mr.Surinder Saini,Works Manager of op no.2 in his sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 that the vehicle was fitted with non genuine accessories such as stereo amplifier LCD TV,Cabin light externally fitted electrical chip and resin flooring etc. by a local garage. It was further found that the wiring was tampered by the local non/Toyota technician. The said statement made by Mr.Surinder Saini, Works Manager of op no.2 has not rebutted by the complainant. Once it is established that the vehicle was fitted with non genuine accessories, it would only mean that the wiring system had been tampered with and that too by a non Toyota technician and therefore, it is covered by the factors beyond the manufacturer’s control as spelt in para no.11 of the affidavit,Ex.R1 and so given in para no.4 of the written statement filed by op no.1. 16. We are also of the view that the fire in the stationary vehicle can not be said to have taken place because of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.All this occurred because of the wiring system having been tampered with while installing the non genuine accessories such as stereo amplifier LCD TV, cabin light externally fitted electrical chip and resin flooring etc. by a local garage.Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Pronounced. Dated:9.5.2011 Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | | 
