BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 22nd day of December 2017
Filed on : 14-06-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.228/2017
Between
Jimmy Joseph, : Complainant
Manickathan house, (party-in-person)
Thannipuzha, Okkal P.O,
Ernakulam-683 550.
And
1. Managing Director, : Opposite parties
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., (1st O.P. By Adv. Frijo K. Sundaram,
UB City, vital Mallaya road, Legal Minds, Advocaates &
Bangalore – 560 001, Consultants, #1008, B Wing, Mittal
Karnataka. Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore
Pin 560 001)
2. Managing Director, (2nd O.P. By Adv. P. Viswanathan,
Nippon Motor Corporation Pvt. Karthika, Asoka road, Kaloor,
Ltd., Nippon Toyota, XIIX NC, Kochi-17)
Nippon Tower, Kalamassery,
Ernakulam.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainant purchased two Toyoto Corrola Altis Cars from the 2nd opposite party on 30-12-2014 . After 14 months of its purchase one of the car KL-40-K 7222, showed signal indicating reduced engine oil. The vehicle was taken to the service station of the 2nd opposite party and it was repaired. After a few months the same problem arose again. Again when the vehicle was given to the 2nd opposite party. According to them certain parts of the engine were replaced. However, the engine level was going down frequently due to some manufacturing defects. The opposite parties are not willing to replace or to repair the engine to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. Notice were issued to the opposite parties and both opposite parties appeared and resisted the complaint by filing their version contending inter-alia as follows:
3. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is running a travel agency by name “Yahoodar” in a commercial basis employing drivers. The vehicle had already run 62992 kmtrs. and till such time there was no complaint regarding excessive usage of engine oil. So much of kmtrs were run within a period of two years and 5 months. The engine was perfectly in working condition and there was no manufacturing defects. The allegations in the complainant is only a running repair and there no manufacturing defects as alleged.
On the above pleadings the following issues raised for consideration.
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii. Whether the complainant had proved any deficiency in
service on the part of the opposite parties?
iii. Reliefs and costs
5. The evidence in this case consists of Exbts. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the complainant and Exbts. B1 to B5 and oral evidence of DW1on the side of the opposite parties.
6. Issue No.i. The opposite parties alleged that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer Protection Act. The complainant admitted that he purchased two Corrola Altis cars from the 2nd opposite party on the very same day . He has no case in the complaint that he has using the car for eking out of his livelihood . The complainant did not produce any documents to show that the vehicle was purchased in his name. Exbts. A1 to A5 are only the service invoices and job cards. There is nothing to indicate that the complainant was using the car for his personal use. On the other hand the complainant itself admitted that he was using the car for commercial usage . No where in the complaint, it is seen stated that he was using the car commercially to eke out his livelihood. The complainant did not make any pleadings and did not adduce any evidence to prove that he would be a consumer within the meaning of the proviso to Section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer Protection Act. We therefore find that the complainant is not a consumer and the issue is found against the complainant.
7. Issue No.ii. Since the complainant is found to be not a consumer the question of deficiency is not arise and therefore that issue is not being considered.
8. Issue No. iii. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. However in the circumstance of the case, there will not be any order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22nd day of December 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : True copy of Tax Invoice
dt. 30-11-2016
A2 : True copy of Tax Invoice
dt. 30-11-2016
A3 : True copy of job order
dt. 17-11-2016
A4 : True copy of Tax invoice
dt. 20-03-2017
A5 : True copy of tax invoice
dt. 31-05-2017
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : True copy of the recorded data
B2 : True copy of repair order
B3 : True copy of pages Nos. 226, 227
and 228 of the owner's manual
and warranty booklet.
B4 : True copy of letter dt. 17-03-2017
B5 : True copy of taxi registration
certificate
Depositions
DW1 : Bino Varghese
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post : By hand:
