BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 35/2012 Filed on 25/01/2012
Dated: 02..02..2017
Complainant:
Dr. Manzor Ahmed, Chungassery Manzil, Padayarkulangara North, Karunagapally, Quilon – 690 518.
(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)
Opposite parties:
1. Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd., No.24, 10th Floor, Canberra Block, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Nippon Motor Corporation (P) Ltd., NH 47, Byepass, Attinkuzhi, Kazhakkuttom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 582.
(Opp. Parties 1 & 2 by Adv. R. Jayakrishnan)
This C.C having been heard on 07..10..2016, the Forum on 02..02..2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. P. SUDHIR, PRESIDENT:
Complainant’s case is that complainant purchased a pre-owned Toyota Innova Car in the year 2008. The complainant was desirous of fitting a DVD player and LCD monitor in the car with Toyota certification at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant thereupon enquired with the person in charge of the show room of the 2nd opposite party that whether the brands they are in possession are certified products of M/s. Toyota and actual price of each branch. But it was replied that the products are not certified by Toyota or Nippon and also disclosed the price or each brand available with them. He clarified that Ms/ Toyota are not manufacturing or certifying any products for fitment in their vehicle. As the complainant felt that the price disclosed by the 2nd opposite party was exorbitant, he decided to enquire about the price of the same brands without side dealers. Accordingly, when the price of the same brands were enquired with other dealers out side, it was found to the surprise of the complainant that the price difference was exorbitant. The same brands were available outside at a lesser price with the price difference ranging more than Rs. 10,000/- and hence the complainant did not think otherwise and without any hesitation purchased the DVD player and LCD monitor from the outside dealer. Moreover, there was no reason for the complainant to purchase those items from the 2nd opposite party which is not having Toyota certification since there was a huge price difference of more than Rs. 10,000/- for the same brand. After the purchase the complainant had taken all those items to the 2nd opposite party to get it fitted in his Toyota Innova vehicle. But the 2nd opposite party has refused to fit the same in the vehicle for the sole reason that the same was purchased from outside. As the 2nd opposite party has refused to fit the same in the vehicle, the complainant had no other option but to get it fitted in the vehicle by a competent electrician from outside and fitted the same accordingly. The complainant has been regularly servicing the vehicle at every 10000kms at the service centre of the 2nd opposite party. After fitting of the above said DVD and LCD monitor in the vehicle everything went smooth for about 2 years and no defect was noticed to any part of the vehicle. But a couple of weeks prior to 40000kms service the battery of the vehicle started draining without any reason. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has been doing periodical service with the 2nd opposite party without any disputes. As such, when the complainant had sent the vehicle for the 40000kms service, on 5/2/2011 the person in charge of servicing of the vehicle had told that the draining off of the battery was due to the DVD player which was purchased and fitted from outside and since it was a busy for him he cannot check the problem of the vehicle in detail on that day. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the complainant is staying about 125kms away from the 2nd opposite party show room and the person in charge was well aware of the fact of the inconvenience experienced by the complainant to take the vehicle for service to such a distant place again. Due to the complainant’s repeated pleadings, he agreed to disconnect the DVD player which is alleged to have caused the problem and started his work. When the complainant got the vehicle back from the 2nd opposite party after the said work, to the surprise of the complainant, the DVD player was still working without any problem but the DOM lights which is a standard fitment of the vehicle was not working. Immediately the said fact was informed to the 2nd opposite party and he told the complainant that he would check all the problems during the next visit. For the next six months or so there was no problem to the vehicle and the battery and everything except the DOM light was absolutely fine. The complainant sent the vehicle for the 50000kms service to the 2nd opposite party on 27/09/2011 and informed him well in advance about the electrical problem which he had agreed to check during the said service. Initially the 2nd opposite party refused to attend the problem saying that since the DVD player was purchased and fitted from outside he would not check the defect. Thereupon the complainant had no remind the 2nd opposite party that the connections to additional fitment were disconnected in the previous service and the vehicle was driven without the same for the past six months and the person who claimed to have disconnected those things was not even aware of what he did during the previous service. Since the 2nd opposite party has committed a mistake he had no other choice but to agree to attend to the electrical problems pointed out by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party had reconnected the DOM lights which they had disconnected at the previous service believing that it was the connected of DVD and they also charged the complainant for some additional wiring he had done on the vehicle. When the vehicle was brought back after servicing after additional electrical works from the 2nd opposite party, it was disclosed that the earlier defect of the vehicle that is, the draining off of the battery of the vehicle again started. The complainant sent an email to the 2nd opposite party stating the problems that he is facing after the vehicle was sent to the 2nd opposite party for service. In response to the mail, the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and requested to send the vehicle again for check up. In order to avoid further complication, the complainant got removed the DVD player and LCD monitor from the vehicle by an experienced automobile electrician and sent the vehicle again to the 2nd opposite party to check up and clear the problem regarding the draining off of the battery of the vehicle on 11/10/2011. After examining the vehicle, the opposite party told that the reasons for draining of battery is due to the presence of central lock in the vehicle which was not purchased from the 2nd opposite party and suggested to remove it from the vehicle. In order to get the vehicle in good condition, the complainant allowed the 2nd opposite party to do whatever they wanted. Accordingly the opposite party returned the vehicle to the complainant after removing the central lock. The 2nd opposite party is not having genuine spare parts in his show room to be replaced then and there. The 2nd opposite party is compelling the customers to buy the accessories from his show room and in directly threatening the customers constraining them to purchase the accessories from their show room by paying very high price which amounts to unfair trade practice. Condition precedent for sale of cars the opposite parties are insisting / forcing customers to purchase accessories. The 2nd opposite party had stocked accessories like DVD players and LCD monitor etc and are compelling the customers to purchase from them and fit the same in the vehicle. The customers who do not oblige will face adverse consequences when the vehicle is taken for service or when defect to the vehicle occurs. The complainant has been consistently suffering the adverse consequences perpetrated by the opposite parties. On the following dates viz 05/02/2011, 27/09/2011, 30/09/2011, when complainant visited the showroom he found that the opposite parties are still insisting / forcing customers to purchase accessories as a condition precedent to buying and for promoting sale adopting unfair method and deceptive practice. The said practice on the part of the opposite parties is liable to be prohibited under Section 14(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The vehicle presently suffers from the following defects which has not been rectified:
a. The DVD player and LCD monitor remains disconnected and has been removed from the vehicle.
b. The remote lock remains disconnected and complainant approached this Forum for praying reliefs.
2. Notice sent to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared and contested the case.
As per the version of the opposite parties the contention taken is that the complainant has purposefully suppressed the details of the vehicle with which the complaint occurred. The complainant used to purchase second hand vehicles and sell it for higher prices. The vehicle which the complainant brought for service is an Innova vehicle of 2006 model. It was initially owned by Dr. Rajesh G Nair. The complainant purchased the vehicle in year 2008. The complainant did not make any enquiry with the opposite parties with respect to the certified products of Toyota. The complainant is silent about the details of purchase of the DVD player and LCD monitor affixed in his Innova vehicle. The date of purchase, the brand of the products and the place from where it was fitted in the vehicle are conspicuously silent in the complaint. Without mentioning the brand of the product and its price, he has simply stated that there is a difference of more than Rs. 10,000/- for the brand in the 2nd opposite party’s show room. The complainant never approached the opposite parties to get the DVD player and LCD monitor fitted in the vehicle. The complainant, no where in the complaint, has stated the name of the shop or the electrician who has fitted the DVD and LCD in the vehicle. The complainant brought the vehicle the shop of the 2nd opposite party with a complaint of draining of battery and also for the service of 40000kms in the month of February 2011. On inspecting the vehicles by the experts of the 2nd opposite party it was found that voltage drop was there due to the affixture of non genuine LCD through an inexpert electrician. It was found that the power output for operating the clock on the LCD has been taken from the internal roof lamp. Due to incorrect wiring the defect was occurred. When pointed out the defect to the complainant, he requested to make arrangements for working of the DVD and LCD. Accordingly at the request of the complainant, the connection to the roof lamp and clock on DVD was disconnected and the voltage drop complaint was cured. Thereafter the complainant used the vehicle without any complaint and he carried out the service of 45000 kms in the month of June 2011 from the 2nd opposite party. There was no complaint from the complainant at this occasion. The complainant again brought the vehicle for the service for 50000kms on 27/09/2011. Then he demanded to reconnect the roof lamp. Then the complainant was informed in detail regarding the complaint. The entire complaint was occurred due to the execution of the work by some inexperienced persons. The vehicle which was purchased by the complainant is a second hand one and he had executed all the electrical works through some local inexperienced electrician and that has caused all the electrical complaints in the vehicle including the draining of the battery. The 2nd opposite party made all earnest efforts to rectify the same even thereafter the complainant sought assistance for connecting new DVD player in the vehicle from unauthorised dealer. It is not correct that DOM light was disconnected by believing that it was the connection to the DVD. When the connection to the roof lamp reconnected, the complaint again started. Such an allegation is made with ulterior motive to defame the 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party never compelled their customers or threaten them to purchase accessories from the show room. The further allegation that the customers who do not oblige the demand of the 2nd opposite party will face adverse consequence when the vehicle is taken for service is also baseless and defamatory. There is no unfair or deceptive practice on the part of the opposite parties.
3. Issues:
(i) Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 marked. Complainant cross examined by opposite parties. Opposite parties not produced any evidence. As per the deposition of PW1 in the box. “Nippon Toyota യില് നിന്നും താങ്കള് പുതിയ വാഹനം purchase ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) ഇല്ല (A). Toyota മോടോറിന്റെ മറ്റ് vehicles ഉപയോഗിക്കുകയും അത് 2nd opposite party സ്ഥാപനത്തില് service ചെയ്യാതെ കൊണ്ട് പോയിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) ഉണ്ട് (A) താങ്കള് Toyota യുടെ എത്ര വാഹനങ്ങള് ഉപയോഗിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്(Q) 2,3 ലേറെ വാഹനങ്ങള് ഉപയോഗിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട് (A) ഇവയെല്ലാം second hand vehicles ആയിരുന്നോ (Q) അതെ (A) നിലവില് Toyota vehicle ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ(Q) ഇല്ല (A). ഈ കേസില് ഉള്പ്പെട്ട വാഹനം 2008 –ല് വാങ്ങി 2012 മൂന്നാം മാസം വിറ്റോ (Q) 2012 –ല് വിറ്റ്, date, month ഓര്മ്മയില്ല (A). ഒരു DVD player, LCD monitor ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടാണ്പരാതി (Q) അതെ (A) DVD player, LCD monitor purchase ചെയ്തതിന്റെ bill ഉണ്ടോ (Q) warranty period കഴിഞ്ഞതുകൊണ്ട് സൂക്ഷിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. 2 years ആണ് warranty സാധനങ്ങള് കൈയ്യിലുണ്ട് (A). ഇതില് പറയുന്ന LCD monitor, DVD player നിങ്ങളുടെ വാഹനത്തില് ഏത് സ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ ഏത് technician – നെ കൊണ്ട് fit ചെയ്തിരുന്നു എന്ന് കാണിക്കാന് എന്തെങ്കിലും രേഖ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) ഇവിടെ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല (A) താങ്കള് വാഹനം വാങ്ങുമ്പോള് അതില് LCD monitor, DVD player, centre locking system എന്നിവ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നോ (Q) വാങ്ങുമ്പോള് centre locking system മാത്രമേ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളു (A) നിങ്ങള് എടുത്തതിനുശേഷം വാഹനം 2nd opposite party സ്ഥാപനത്തില് ആദ്യമായി service –ന് കൊണ്ടുപോകുമ്പോള് LCD monitor, DVD player, fit ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടായിരുന്നോ (Q) ഇല്ല (A).40000km service – ന് വേണ്ടി 2nd opposite party സ്ഥാപനത്തില് കൊണ്ടുപോകുമ്പോഴാണ് ആദ്യമായി battery drain ചെയ്തു എന്ന complaint ഉണ്ടായത്(Q) അപ്പോഴാണ് battery drain ചെയ്തു എന്ന complaint അവരെ അറിയിച്ചത് (A). 35000km service –ന്റെ സമയത്ത് LCD monitor, DVD player fit ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടായിരുന്നോ (Q) ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു(A). ഈ LCD monitor – ന്റെ clock – ലേക്കുള്ള connection dom lamp – ല് നിന്നാണ് എടുത്തിട്ടുള്ളത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു(Q) അതിന്റെ technical side എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല(A). 40000km ഓടി drain ചെയ്ത complaint പറയുമ്പോള് LCD monitor – ലെ clock –ലേക്ക് dom lamp – ല് നിന്നും എടുത്ത connection disconnect ചെയ്തപ്പോഴാണ് drain ചെയ്ത problem വരുന്നത്(Q). എനിക്കറിയില്ല. ഞാന് 40000km ആയപ്പോള് service-ന് കൊണ്ട് കൊടുത്ത് ഞാന് battery drain ചെയ്തു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു. അപ്പോള് അവര് പറഞ്ഞു non-genuine സാധനങ്ങളാണ് battery drain ചെയ്യാന് കാരണമായി പറഞ്ഞത് (A). നിങ്ങള് affidavit –ല് LCD monitor, DVD player എന്നിവയുടെ manufacturing company – ഉടെ പേര് പറയുന്നുണ്ട്. ഇത് നിങ്ങള് ഹാജരാക്കിയ complaint –ലോ രേഖകളിലോ ഈ വിവരം പറയുന്നുണ്ടോ (Q) Affidavit –ലെ പറയുന്നുള്ളൂ (A). Heard both sides and perused the evidence. It is admitted by complainant that the subject matter of this case is not now in his possession No attempt made by the complainant to brought out technical experts of opinion for this Forum. Complainant not produced any document to show that the DVD player and LCD monitor are genuine. We are of the opinion that complainant utterly failed to prove his case. Complainant was wasting his time with an experimental case for unlawful enrichment and thereby wasted the precious time of this Forum. We are of the opinion that the case has no merit and only to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 2nd day of February, 2017.
Sd/- P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad. Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 35/2012
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness:
PW1 : Dr. Manzor Ahmed
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of RC book of Dr. Manzor Ahmed
P2 : Copy of Periodic Maintenance Service Record of Nippon Toyota, Thiruvananthapuram
P3 : Copy of Tax Invoice bill of Nippon Motor Corporation dated 05/02/2011
P4 : Copy of Tax Invoice bill of Nippon Motor dated 27/09/2011
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ document : N I L
Sd/-PRESIDENT
ad
