State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C. S. Chauhan vs Toyota Kirloskar on 6 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 317 of 2013 Date of Institution : 25.07.2013 Date of Decision : 06.08.2013 C.S.Chauhan s/o Sh.B.S.Chauhan, R/o Flat No.110, GH-36, Sector 20, Panchkula Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1] M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, Regd. Office and works Plot No.01, Bidadi Industrial Area, Biadadi, District Ramanagara, Karnataka 562109 2] M/s. Emm Pee Motors Limited, through its Managing Director, Plot NO.177-H, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002 3] M/s. ANR Motors Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, Village Chak Gauran, P.O.Niara, Opp. Reliance Petrol Pump, Jallandhar Road, Hoshiarpur Punjab. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.6.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, in response to an advertisement of the Opposite Parties, about their vehicle i.e. Toyota Etios G giving an average of 17.57 kmpl., purchased the same from Opposite Party No.2 on 21.2.2011. It was stated that the said vehicle was got registered vide Regd. No.HR-03-M-3756 and its extended warranty term was for a period of 36 months or 10000 kms (Annexure C-6), whichever was earlier. It was further stated that the said vehicle was giving average of 11-12 kms per litre only and it was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 assured that the average of the vehicle would improve after coverage of 10000 kms. It was further stated that the complainant paid Rs.28,967/-, Rs.26,375/- and Rs.2,615/- vide receipts (Annexures C-2, C-3 and C-4) towards the cost of accessories. It was further stated that the complainant also paid Rs.23,337/- towards road tax vide Annexure C-5. It was further stated that on 04.12.2011, when the complainant went to Hoshiarpur, with his family members, to attend the family function, on the way, the vehicle started emitting smoke and stopped on the road. It was further stated that the vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.3 where it remained for three days i.e. from 04.12.2011 to 06.12.2012. After inspection, Opposite Party No.3 informed the complainant that the clutch plates of the vehicle had burnt and required replacement. It was further stated that the vehicle had covered only 9957 kms. and Opposite Party No.3 advised that the vehicle required free service which was due. It was further stated that the service of the vehicle was got done on payment of Rs.5,141/-, which was delivered back to the complainant on 06.12.2011. It was further stated that after covering about 30 kms from the service station, the vehicle again started giving the same problem and, ultimately, stopped. It was further stated that the vehicle was again brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, where a number of parts were replaced as it was suffering from various manufacturing defects and the complainant was made to pay Rs.5,676/- (Annexure C-12) though the same was well within warranty. It was further stated that the complainant got the vehicle weighed and the same was found to be only 905 kgs. against 1200 kgs. It was further stated that in fact, the vehicle, in question, was suffering from various manufacturing defects and was not in a road worthy condition, as a result whereof the same was not working upto the mark. It was further stated that the complainant served a legal notice upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to take back the defective vehicle and refund its price plus the price of accessories, taxes totaling Rs.5,48,485.82 alongwith interest @18% per annum; Rs.5,141/- and Rs.5,676/- paid on 6.12.2011 and 28.12.2011 alongwith interest @18% per annum, pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation, was filed.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that the complainant did not file any expert or cogent evidence in support of his case as required under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act. It was further stated that the complainant failed to understand that the services performed by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, were routine services free of cost. Only the amount for consumables was charged. It was further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the clutch plates. It was further stated that the Fuel Economy Consumer Information produced by the complainant depicted that the values mentioned were only indicative and obtained under ideal test conditions. It was further stated that neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were liable for any difference, which was duly mentioned in Annexure A. It was further stated that the average of the vehicle was based on so many factors, such as condition of roads, driving habits of the driver, air pressures in the tyres, proper maintenance, speed etc. It was further stated that there was no manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, in question. It was further stated that had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle had not run for so many kilometers. It was further stated that the repair carried out for the vehicle was a matter of periodical service and the same depended on the usage pattern of the user of the same. It was further stated that the vehicle, in question, was in a road worthy condition with appropriate weight. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, admitted the sale and repair of the vehicle. It was stated that the average of the vehicle was based upon so many factors such as condition of roads, driving nature of the driver, change of gears, complete air pressure in tyre & tubes, applying of brakes, proper maintenance, speed of the car etc. It was further stated that the car of the complainant had met with an accident, and he had taken insurance claim for the same on 20.9.2011 and to that extent the warranty clause came to an end whether normal or extended warranty, as per the vehicle history. It was further stated that the fact regarding extended warranty was not disclosed by the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicle repaired by Opposite Party No.2, was of normal nature. It was further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party No.2, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, admitted that the vehicle, in question, was received by it, on 4.12.2011 for repairs.
It was stated that the vehicle of the complainant was repaired to the entire satisfaction of the representative of the complainant, and it was handed over to him on 06.12.2011. It was further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The first question, which arises for consideration, is, as, to whether, there was any manufacturing defect(s) in the vehicle, in question? It is evident from the evidence, on record, that the vehicle was purchased by the appellant/complainant on 21.02.2011 and he did not mention in his complaint that there had been any problem whatsoever till 04.12.2011 when the same started emitting smoke and stopped on the road. The vehicle was repaired by the Opposite Parties and the appellant/complainant made a payment of Rs.5,676/-. The appellant/complainant submitted that the vehicle again started giving problem. The appellant/complainant also submitted that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant concealed the material fact that prior to the aforesaid problem, the car had met with an accident and he got the insurance claim of Rs.18,000/- for the same on 20.9.2011 and to that extent, the warranty clause came to an end. Admittedly, no report of an automobile expert/mechanical engineer, was produced, on record, by the complainant, to prove that the vehicle was found to be suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. The plea of the Opposite Parties, that the vehicle had covered 9957 KMs and had there been any manufacturing defect, it would not have covered the aforesaid mileage is apparently correct. The appellant/complainant has, thus, miserably failed to prove that the vehicle, suffered from any manufacturing defect and, as such, no deficiency can be attributed to the respondents/Opposite Parties.
11. As regards the contention of the appellant/ complainant that the weight of the vehicle was 905 Kgs against 1200 Kgs. It may be stated here that, he, for the first time, pointed out this variation in weight in Para 7 of the legal notice dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure C-14). The appellant/complainant, thus, remained silent for about one year and raised this issue without any cogent supporting evidence. It is evident from Annexure C-1 SIAM Fuel Economy Consumer Information (Test Results of Rule 115 of CMVR), that weight of the vehicle, in the graph, has been indicated to be little less than 930 Kgs. Another graph on Annexure C-1 indicates the fuel economy at 17.57 Kmpl. Disclaimer printed on Annexure C-1, at Serial Nos.4 and 7, reads as under: -
4. The vehicle manufacturer and its authorized dealers shall not be liable for any difference in fuel consumption values due to any of the aforesaid variables and no claim shall lie thereon.
5.xxxxx
6.xxxxx
7. The accuracy or correctness of the values is not undertaken or guaranteed when not tested under identical conditions.
12. Even as per the evidence, produced by the appellant/complainant in the shape of Annexure C-1, his claim that the vehicle was under weight, as compared to the weight given in the Certificate of Registration, is not tenable. The appellant/complainant could also produce copy of Form 21 as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [See Rule 47(a) and
(d)] Sale Certificate, in which under Column 10, Unladen weight of the vehicle is indicated. When the manufacturer or its authorized dealers were not, in any way, liable for any difference in values due to any of the aforesaid variables, no liability can be fastened on the respondents/Opposite Parties, on account of alleged lesser weight of the vehicle. More so, the appellant/complainant has not produced any evidence, as to how, the alleged lesser weight of the vehicle had any co-relation with operational efficiency of the vehicle.
13. The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties, on account of alleged low mileage against the claimed mileage of 17.57 KMs per litre as per Annexure C-1. In support of this contention also, the appellant/complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence, on record. In fact, there was no such complaint from him during initial 10 months, after the purchase of vehicle. The mileage of the vehicle would vary depending upon the condition of roads, driving habits of the driver, air pressures in the tyres, proper maintenance, speed etc. Annexure C-1 also clearly indicates that there could be variation due to variables. There was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, nor indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties.
14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
6th August, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.217 of 2013) Argued by: Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated the 6th day of August, 2013 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
DEV RAJ MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT Ad