21 Nov 2023 5:29 AM GMT
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Toyota Kirloskar Motor and its authorized dealer, EM Pee Motors Limited, liable of deficiency in service for selling a car which with noise and excessive oil consumption issues. The manufacturer and the dealer were...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Toyota Kirloskar Motor and its authorized dealer, EM Pee Motors Limited, liable of deficiency in service for selling a car which with noise and excessive oil consumption issues. The manufacturer and the dealer were ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant for the harassment he faced with the newly bought car.
Harjit Singh (“Complainant”) purchased a Toyota Etios Liva GD car from EM Pee Motors Limited (“Dealer”) on 29th July 2015 for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,75,000/-. The Complainant regularly serviced the car with the dealer. Starting in 2017, he began experiencing issues with the car, including noise and fluctuations in the engine oil light. The complainant repeatedly reported these problems to the dealer however, those were left unaddressed. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).
The Complainant alleged that the car was consuming engine oil in excess of the standards set by Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. (the manufacturer) and the dealer. Despite multiple complaints and visits to the service centre, the manufacturer and the dealer failed to rectify the issue. The complainant claimed that the excessive oil consumption was a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturer and the dealer. He sought the replacement of the defective car or engine, highlighting the inconvenience and frustration he had endured due to the repeated issues.
The manufacturer argued that the vehicle was a well-established product in the market, and the complainant had taken delivery of the car after a pre-delivery inspection that found the car to be in good condition. Regular servicing of the vehicle was performed at the specified milestones, and any issues raised by the complainant during these service visits were addressed to his satisfaction. The manufacturer contended that engine oil consumption could vary based on several factors, and some oil consumption during driving was normal. They denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
The dealer claimed that they had adequately addressed the car's issues each time it was brought in for repairs. They denied any deficiency in their services. They argued that no liability could be fastened on them in the case of a manufacturing defect, emphasizing that their role was limited to service provision.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that the evidence particularly a report, which indicated that there was a mention of "for oil consumption, customers are advised to check it again after 5,000 KM." The report also indicated that 100 ml of engine oil had been added during one visit, which clearly showed excessive oil consumption. Other documents confirmed that the vehicle had been taken to the manufacturer and the dealer multiple times for the problem of "engine oil level low" and that they had replaced the vacuum pump under a goodwill warranty and topped up the engine oil.
Although the complainant prayed for the replacement of the defective car or engine, the District Commission did not grant this request. Instead, it decided to compensate the complainant for the harassment he faced as a one-time measure.
The District Commission noted that the complainant had purchased an expensive brand-new vehicle for his comfort. However, within a few months of its purchase, it became a headache for him due to the recurring problem of excessive engine oil consumption. In light of this, the District Commission ruled that the complainant deserved compensation for the harassment he endured.
The District Commission directed the manufacturer and the dealer to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment he had experienced as a result of the ongoing issues with the car, including excessive engine oil consumption. In addition to the compensation for mental agony and harassment, the Commission ordered the manufacturer and the dealer to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant, as costs of litigation.
Case Title: Harjit Singh vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case No.: CC/200/2020
Advocate for the Complainant: Karajveer Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Amritveer Singh
Advocate for the Opposite Party: Arjun Kundra, Advocate for the manufacturer. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh. S.R. Bansal, Advocate for the dealer.
Click Here To Read/Download Order