| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 297 of 3.8.2017 Decided on: 4.5.2021 Vishal Mittal s/o Sh.Pritam Kumar R/o # 202 , Malwa Enclave, Dhamo Majra Road, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagra District Karnataka-562109 Manufacturer of Toyota Vehicles through its Director.
- Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.,4th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower, Ambience Island, New Delhi Gurgaon Tol Plaza-1, Gurgugram, Corporate Office of Toyota through its Director.
- EM Pee Motors Ltd., Plot No.C-154-156, Focal Point Patiala-147001, Authorized Dealer of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. through its Director.
- The Manaer Workshop.EM PEE Motors Ltd., Plot No.C-154-156, Focal Point Patiala-147001,authorized Service Centre of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Vikas Walia, counsel for complainant. Sh.Manjit Singh Sethi,counsel for OPs No.1&2. OP No.3 ex-parte. (Complaint against OP No.4 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.8.2017) ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Vishal Mittal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Toyota Innova Crysta 2.4V package: X, bearing chassis No.MBJGB8EM902000157 and engine No.2GDA001530 from OP No.3 on 30.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.17,77,124/-Thereafter on 15.10.2016 while driving the car in question he noticed that the brakes of the vehicle are not functioning properly. He immediately approached OP No.4 and lodged the complainant .The employees of OP No.4 towed the vehicle to their workshop and after few days informed about the replacement of some parts of the said vehicle under warrantee. The complainant agreed for the same. Thereafter parking brakes, front disc(one side)(on vehicle)-grind, front disc (one side)(on vehicle)-comb:OPP-grind and other routine inspection and repair was carried out and the vehicle was delivered on 25.10.2016.Again the complainant felt problems with the brakes of the vehicle and immediately he informed and visited OP No.4.Again OP No.4 inspected the vehicle and repaired the same by adjusting and replacing the brake tube hose. Again on 9.11.2016 the complainant felt some problems with the brakes and sent the vehicle to OP No.4 which was delivered on the same day after repairing and replacing the brake tube hose. Again on 6.1.2017 the complainant felt some problem while applying brakes and informed OP No.4.OP No.4 kept the vehicle till 11.1.2017 and replaced front disk rotor, front shocker with plates and also changed some brake related spare parts and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 12.1.2017.It is averred that on 10.5.2017 the brakes of the vehicle in question again failed and the vehicle was again sent to OP No.4 for carrying out necessary repairs but the repair work was not done to the satisfaction of the complainant and was delivered to him after 19 days i.e. on 29.5.2017 and also wrote letter dated 20.5.2016 with the advice to replace the brake pads. The letter was sent through courier on 25.5.2017 and was delivered by the courier on 30.5.2017 to the complainant.So there being manufacturing defect as such the OP No.4 is unable to get the vehicle repaired because the problem with the brake system of the vehicle is reoccurring very frequently. The complainant lodged number of complaints but nothing was done to his satisfaction. The complainant also got sent legal notice dated 8.6.2017 to the OPs for the settlement of the claim by replacing the defective vehicle or to refund the purchase amount but to no effect.There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused financial loss, harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to replace the above said vehicle with new one or to refund the entire amount of Rs.17,77,124/-; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.
- Complaint was admitted against OP Nos. 1to 3.Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs No.1&2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply while OP No.3 did not come present to contest the complaint despite service of notice and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.9.2017.
- In the written reply filed by OPs No.1&2 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has not hired or availed any services for consideration; that the vehicle was purchased from OP No.3; that the Hon’ble Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint against OPs No.1&2; that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he violated the terms and conditions of warranty; that there is no manufacturing defects of any kind in the vehicle; that liabilities of OPs No.1&2 are limited to the extent of repair or replacing the defective parts; that the averments made in the complaint are vague, baseless and with malafide intentions; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
- On merits, it is submitted that problem of brakes does not amount to manufacturing defect and due services, repair/replacements of parts under warranty has been given to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the vehicle with new one or to refund of the entire purchase amount. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments of the complainant, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Mr.S.Rangarajan, G.M.Legal and closed the evidence.
- Written arguments on behalf of the OPs have also been filed. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased Toyota Innova vehicle on 30.5.2016 for Rs.17,77,124/-.The ld. counsel further argued that on 15.10.2016 when the complainant was driving the vehicle he noticed that the brakes were defective and he went to OPs No.3&4 and car was repaired but still problem is occurring. On 27.10.2016 the complainant again felt problem with the brakes and he approached OP No.4 and OP No.4 repaired the vehicle by replacing the brake tube hose but problem is reoccurring. The ld. counsel further argued that as brakes are not proper, so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has argued that all the problems with the brakes system were looked into by OPs No.3&4 and the false complaint has been filed, so it be dismissed.
- To prove his case, Sh.Vishal Mittal has tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the registration certificate,Ex.C2 is job card dated 25.10.2016 which shows that there was braking problem in the vehicle,Ex.C3 is also bill of 27.10.2016,Ex.C4 is bill of 9.11.2016, Ex.C5 is also invoice dated 11.1.2017, Ex.C6 is also invoice dated 12.1.2017 in which front disk rotar, front shocker with plates were changed under warranty. Ex.C7 is also invoice dated 29.5.2017 in which it is mentioned that front brake pad needs to be replaced but refused by the customer, Ex.C8 is letter of Toyota to the complainant that brake pad need to be replaced otherwise brakes is OK, Ex.C10 is legal notice.
- On the other hand Mr.S.Rengarajan has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA on behalf of the OPs No.1&2 and has deposed as per the written statement.
- As per the case of the complainant he has purchased the vehicle Toyota Innova Crysta from OP No.3 for Rs.17,77,124/- and after the said purchase of the vehicle on 15.10.2016 when the complainant was driving the vehicle he noticed that the brakes were not working properly and went to the service centre and informed OPs No.3&4. It is stated that the brakes are still not working properly and the complainant has filed this complaint for the replacement of the vehicle with new one or refund of the entire amount. There are documents on the file in the shape of job cards which show that there were problem of brakes and as per Ex.C2 dated 25.10.2016 when the vehicle has only run 8334 KMs there was some problem in the brakes and was looked into under warranty. In the invoice Ex.C3, it is mentioned that it was observed by the company that brake hose pipe was damaged due to underbody fit resulting poor efficiency of brakes. So from the documents it is clear that problem was looked into under warranty.
- OP No.3 has chosen not to appear and it was proceeded against exparte. Now it is the duty of OP No.3 to look into the complaint of the complainant as he has purchased the vehicle on 30.5.2016 for Rs.17,77,124/- and the vehicle developed problems in the month of October/2016.
- So due to our above discussion, complaint is partly allowed and OP No.3 is directed to change the entire brake system of the car to the satisfaction of the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. OP No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs and another sum of Rs.10,000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant within the prescribed period.
ANNOUNCED DATED:4.5.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
