By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in brief is as follows: -
1. The complainant purchased 2017 model innova car for his personal use from the first opposite party on 25/08/2017 and the vehicle was delivered to him on 09/08/2017. The vehicle was registered as KL 10 AZ 77. The vehicle is having warranty for three years from the date of purchase and the first service was done at 1265/- kilometers, second service was done at 4557 kilometers on 19/12/2017, third service done at 9805 kilometers on 10/03/2018. All the services were free in nature. The first paid service was done on 09/07/2018 at 17117 kilometers, the second paid service was done on 19/09/2018 at 19862 kilometers.
2. The complainant alleges defects to the vehicles that is pulling power was not up to the mark. The offered mileage for vehicle was 15 kilometers with Air conditioner in on position. But the mileage is only 10 kilometers per liter of diesel. The opposite party had assured mileage will improve after free service but it was not seen after the due service.
3. The vehicle was produced before the first opposite party for the periodic service. The complainant purchased car from the first opposite party by availing loan from Federal bank, Mongam branch. When the first opposite party was contacted it was stated the vehicle is defect free, a brand new one. The Vehicle was well maintained by the complainant.
4. The complainant alleges that during the warranty period itself there was unusual sound from the front portion and the matter was informed to the first opposite party. The vehicle was produced before the first opposite party for inspection and on inspection it was found brake drum and pad etc. were damaged. The vehicle was covered only 17125 kilometers at that time. The supervisors and technicians inspected the vehicle and stated that the front brake system of the car is found damaged and the same should be replaced under warranty. It Was stated that the vehicle will be delivered on the same day was the representation of the opposite party. When the complainant returned, the officials of the first opposite party contacted over phone and it was informed that they want money for repair works. The entire brake system had damaged and it needs replacement. If repair charges are to be lowered, it was represented that they repair it from outside work shop with duplicate spares. It was a shock to the complainant. The vehicle is having warranty for three years and it was represented that the vehicle is covered by warranty. It was informed that the vehicle will not be repaired till the payment is made.
5. The vehicle is having inherent damgaes since there is defect to the vehicle within months of purchase. The complainant is certain that the vehicle will not last at least 15 years as assured. The complainant purchases the vehicle believing the advertisement promises and assurances of the vehicle. The complainant alleges the service personal were adamant and misbehaved against complainant. The complainant paid Rs.8,628/ on 05/07/2018 for the repair. It was seen that the pad kit disc is replaced. It was informed that they polished the disc and done some repairs. The first opposite party stated that the defect is not manufacturing defect but the complainant enquired and found the defect as an inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant used to do wheel alignment regularly and even then, it was seen the all four tyres are unevenly worn out. The third opposite party is the manufactures of the tiers fitted in the vehicle. The first opposite party contacted the third opposite party and informed the unusual were occurred for the all the 4 tyres. The first opposite part stated after inspection that the tyres are not having any manufacturing defect and the tyres are warranted for at least forty thousand kilometers. The company is offering 60,000 kilometers and it was found that the tyres will give a mileage of forty thousand kilometers.
6. The complainant on enquiry found that similar vehicles manufactured by the second opposite party is having this complaint. But the opposite parties are saying one thing or other to conceal the same. The complainant alleges the vehicle is having inherent defects and that is the reason the tyres are worn-out unevenly even after doing timely wheel balancing and care. The first opposite party is duty bound to check the parameters. The tyres are worn-out and the vehicle cannot be use now. The defect persists and it can be rectified only by doing major repair and that can be done by the first and second opposite party alone. The third opposite party says the tyres manufactured by them is defect free. The complainant prays for a defect free vehicle form the first and second opposite party. The third opposite party is impleaded for the just decision of the case. The complainant purchased the vehicle to use it for a life time and not for the warranty period as claimed by an officer of first opposite part.
7. The complainant alleges gross deficiency in service and negligence against the opposite parties. The complainant informed the details of the defect to the second opposite party through first opposite party but no person was contacted to enquire the details. The vehicle became useless and the complainant cannot use the vehicle on the road. The vehicle is having inherent defects and it is not fit for the road and the complainant was put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship the opposite parties are bound to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. Hence the prayer is to direct the opposite parties to take to remove the defective parties and rust of the vehicle in good road worthy condition. The complainant further prays compensation of Rs.40,0000/- and refund Rs.8,628/- collected from the complaint towards the repair cost and allow cost of the proceedings.
8. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The opposite parties 2 and three though filed version no affidavit is seen filed and so they set exparte. The first opposite party filed version denying the entire averments and allegation sin the complaint.
9. The first opposite party submitted that the complainant purchased 2017 model Innova car on 09/08/2017 from the opposite party and it was registered as KL 10AZ 77, the warranty was for three years, the first service was done at 1265 kilometers, second service was done at 4557 kilometers, the third service done at 9805 kilometer , all the service were free in nature, the first paid service was done at 17117 kilometers on 09/07/2018, second paid service was done at 19862 on 19/09/2018 etc are correct and so admitted. But the opposite party submitted that the tyre brake pad is not part of warranty and it is stated in the owner’s manual itself.
10. The first opposite party denied the allegations that there was defect to the vehicle, there was shortage in pulling, that there was of an offer of 15 kilometers while using AC which is not available, that only 10 kilometers mileage is obtaining, that it was offered improvement for the mileage after completing free services are incorrect and so denied. The assurance given by the opposite party was for 15 kilometers as per the owner’s manual and further contended all other customers are getting 15-kilometer mileage for the vehicle.
11. The opposite party denied averment that there was warranty for all the defects during the three years. The opposite party has not given any sort of warranty for the tyres, battery, and brake pad, all those are depends upon the use by customers. It is also denied that the complainant maintained the vehicle properly since it was done in that way no chance for these sorts of complaints.
12. The opposite party denied the allegation that there was unusual sound from the front side of the vehicle and the said defect was informed to the first opposite party and then the first opposite party directed the complainant to produce the vehicle and on examination it was found brake pad and drum has got defects and the brake pad and disc along with brake system to be replaced while the vehicle covered 17125/ kilometer only was asked to replace is correct. But the allegation that to reduce the charge it was advised to purchase duplicate parts from outside is incorrect. The opposite party submitted brake pad change depend upon the use of the same by the customers. If the vehicle uses in hilly area where up and downs are there on the road and the vehicle is using negligently and rashly, naturally result brake pad damage and if the use continues brake pad, brake system all together becomes defective and which necessitate replacement of the same. The opposite party is not responsible for the aforesaid sort of use of the vehicle. The opposite party also used to instruct the customers about the same and it has duly described in the owner’s manual. The allegation that three free services were not done but was simple washing alone was done is not correct. The opposite party submit that there is no deficiency in or indecent behavior of the opposite parties. It is quite natural to check the wheel alignment and balancing when covering 3000 - 4000 kilometers and the same is the duty of the customer, especially the vehicle is using through hilly area. The opposite party is not admitting that the complainant was doing proper wheel alignment and balancing and the complainant has not produced any document to show the same. Hence the complaint deserve dismissal with cost of the opposite party.
13. The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is counter foil of HDFC bank. Ext. A2 is receipt issued from the Amana Toyota, Ramapuram dated 15/01/2020. The first opposite party filed affidavit but no document is produced.
14. Heard complainant and first opposite party. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration.
15. The case of the complainant is the vehicle has got inherent defects and for that he claims compensation and seeking direction against opposite parties to remove the defective parts and restore the vehicle in road worthy condition. Complainant also prayed refund of Rs.8,628/-. The complainant produced two documents which is nothing but a receipt for the payment of Rs.14,761/- to the Amana Toyota, the first opposite party and a bank slip belong to HDFC bank. These two documents is not sufficient to establish the defects of the vehicle and to allow the claim of the complainant as prayed in the affidavit. The complainant miserably failed to establish the grievance and defects of the vehicle. The documents produced by the complainant is not sufficient to establish the case of the complainant. The complainant ought to have produced documents to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle either through an expert evidence or through intermittent checking in work shop and the rectification of defects. The complainant has nothing brought to establish the claim and so the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2
Ext.A1: Counter foil of HDFC bank.
Ext.A2: Receipt issued from the Amana Toyota, Ramapuram dated 15/01/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
:
