D.O.F:19/05/2017

                                                                                                  D.O.O:30/05/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

CC.No.99/2017

Dated this, the 30^th day of May 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Asharaf. A.K

S/o Moidu

Chettukundu House

Keekan.P.O, Pallikara,                                            : Complainant

Kasaragod Dist, 671316

(Adv: P.K. Chandrashekaran)

                                                            And

V.P.K. Motors Pvt, Ltd.

Amana Toyota, 470 B&C

Near N.H.17 Periya, P.O Periya

Kasaragod – 671316                                               : Opposite Parties

(Adv: V. Mohanan)

2. The Managing Director

Toyotta, Kirlosker Pvt. Ltd.

HQ, Ramanagara Industrial Area,

Bidadi, Banglore, Karanadaka

(Adv: Sathyashanker)

ORDER

 SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

     The case of the complainant is as follows:-

     That the complainant purchased an Innova Crysta Car from Opposite Party No:1 on 28/09/2016, later registred with transport authority as KL- 60- A 4255.  He noticed that there is a severe manufacturing defect to the vehicle by making abnormal sound from right rear side, vehicle was taken to service station, run by Opposite Party No:1.  The vehicle undergone regular service and returned on the next day.  Again complaint occurred and the vehicle taken on the next day with defects it is not solved.  Opposite Party No:1 expressed their inability to rectify the problem.  Notice is sent both parties.   The relief sought in the complaint is compensation for damages and replacement of the car.

2.     The  Opposite Party No:1 filed its version.  Complaint of un usual sound and defects alleged were looked into and those defects were cured with minor repairs, vehicle is returned the next day.  Allegation that  vehicles is kept with Opposite Party No:1,  they could not rectify the defects etc are false.  Even after issue of lawyer notice complainant brought the vehicle for periodical service with Opposite Party No:1.  But he did not raise any objection relating to manufacturing defects or deficiency in service from Opposite Party No:1.

3.  The Opposite Party No: 2 filed its version denying the allegations of manufacturing defects, qualified technicians inspected the vehicle and found no such defect and vehicle is free from any Manufacturing  defect and thus complainant is to be dismissed.

4.     The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 Ext A1 to A5 documents marked from his side.  Ext A1 and A2 is the tax invoice Ext A3 is the tax invoice by Opposite Party No: 1, Ext A4 and A5 are postal acknowledgment cards.  Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 also filed Chief affidavit.

     As per the complaint and objection raised by Opposite Parties following points raised for consideration .

1. Whether complainant has made out a prima facie case of having any manufacturing defects to his vehicle? If so whether complainant is entitled for replacement of the vehicle.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service of Opposite Party ? and whether complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the case? If so for what reliefs?

7.     It is the case of the complainant that he urged from the very day on which the vehicle was delivered to him, it suffered manufacturing defect in the vehicle, that it makes abnormal sound from engine.  But complainant did not take any steps to appoint a technical expert to prove manufacturing defect of the vehicle and thus in the absence of evidence/report of technical expert we hold the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect.  Further complainant has no case that vehicle suffer from any defect relating to functioning of any vehicle part or create problem while running the vehicle, thus case of the complainant is not proved by acceptable and legal evidence and the materials on record.

     In Maruthi Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gobgotra (2006) 4Scc 644, in which it was inter alia, held that if the manufacturing defect was established, then replacement of the entire item or the replacement of the defective parts, is only called for.  There was absolutely no justification for the complainant to demand that the vehicle been replaced or that the value thereof, together with the expenses in cured be refunded.

     Also there is no evidence for deficiency in service of Opposite Party No: 1 or 2 and thus complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  Vehicle is admittedly being used and running for long period. 

     In the result complaint is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

     Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1 & A3- Tax Invoice

A4&A5- Postal Acknowledgment

Witness Examined

Pw1- Ashraf

      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/