Haryana

StateCommission

A/705/2015

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANISH NAGPAL - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.BANSAL

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                             

First Appeal No.705 of 2015

Date of Institution: 27.08.2015      Date of Decision:22.04.2016

 

1.         Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office,  # No.24, 10^th Floor, Canberra Block, Vittal Malya Road, Near Mallaya Hospital, Bangalore 560001 through its Chairman.

2.         M/s Em Pee Motors Ltd., Pioneer Toyota, # No.71, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula 134113 through its Managing Director.

3.         Parminder Singh, Managing Director, M/s Em Pee Motors Ltd., Pioneer Toyota, # No.71, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula 134114.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

Manish Nagpal S/o Shri O.P.Nagpal, r/o Flat No.203, GH-36, Sector-20, Panchkula and presently residing at flat No.601, Chinar Apartments, Peer Machalla, tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S.Nagar.

         …..Respondent

 

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Amit Kohar, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - appellants are in appeal against the Order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby the complaint of Manish Nagpal - Complainant has been allowed with the following directions: -

“13. While, thus, allowing the complaint, we would direct the OPs to deliver the vehicle to the complainant after it is examined by the Engineers of OP No.2 in the presence of the complainant who would be duty bound to take the vehicle along only after the issuance of a certification by the engineers that the fact has been rectified in toto. The needful shall be done within 10 days of the receipt of a copy of this order by the OPs who shall notify the date of examination of the vehicle to the complainant by registered post. However, the complainant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- as a compensation for mental agony and harassment undergone by him. He shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5000/- as the cost of litigation. While the compliance of the first facet shall come about within 10 days of the receipt of a copy of the order by the OPs, the other facet with regard to the payment of compensation shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date the communication thereof to them comes about. The liability of the OPs to comply with the latter part of the order shall be joint and several”.

 

2. In brief, the complainant had purchased a car - make Toyota Etios petrol version G model class Sedan on 16.10.2014 through its authorized dealer for an amount of Rs.6,03,000/-. After the delivery of the car, complainant noticed that the car was not starting properly. The engineer of OP-2 visited the house of the complainant and stated that there was a starting problem and the vehicle was repaired. After a few days, the same problem again occurred. The vehicle was checked in the workshop and the engineer gave the remarks “Battery discharge condition received and battery need charge and load testing OK, battery is OK and return to Toyota customer as on dated 29.10.2014”. After rectification of the problem, again the complainant faced the same starting problem. Thereupon, the complainant sent a legal notice and requested the OP to replace the defective vehicle. But when no reply was received the complainant approached the District Forum for redressal of his grievance.
3. Justifying their action, the OP-1 pleaded that on 27.11.2014, OP-2 had replaced the battery of the complainant’s vehicle with a new battery under free of costs basis and on 20.12.2014 when the complainant raised issue regarding starting problem, the OP No.2 immediately attended the complaint.  As such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1.
4. OPs 2 & 3 pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, because due to mishandling, the battery and its related push button problem, the battery got exhausted and thereafter it was checked and set right on 29.10.2014 with the remarks “Battery OK and returned”. Since, the complainant had nowhere alleged any other defect, it is averred that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 2 & 3.  The learned District Forum rejected the plea of OPs 2 & 3 and allowed the complaint by granting the aforesaid relief.
5. Against the impugned order dated 10.07.2015, the OPs appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their stand raised before the District Forum and praying that the penalty imposed by the learned District Forum deserved to be set aside.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is evident from the documentary evidence that the respondent – complainant faced the same starting problem number of times, even though the vehicle was a new one. Two different Engineers inspected the vehicle and found that the Battery was not in order and the starting problem existed in the vehicle. For all this harassment, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the learned District Forum is quite reasonable and the appeal filed by the OPs against this order is wholly without any merit. According the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. The statutory amount of Rs.17500/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.

 

April 22nd, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.