Case: – Harjit Singh v/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd; Consumer Complaint No. CC/200/2020
In a recent decision by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, Consumer Complaint No. CC/200/2020 was resolved bringing relief to Mr. Harjit Singh, the complainant, against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and EM Pee Motors Limited.
The complaint, filed on 2.7.2020, outlined Mr. Singh’s purchase of a Toyota Etios Liva GD from EM Pee Motors Limited in 2015 for Rs.6,75,000. Alleging excessive engine oil consumption and a lack of corrective action by the dealers, Mr. Singh sought resolution for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
In response, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. contended that the vehicle was in good condition upon delivery, with all subsequent service visits addressing issues to the satisfaction of the complainant. They argued that engine oil consumption is a normal characteristic and denied any manufacturing defect. EM Pee Motors Limited, the service provider, asserted proper attention to the car without acknowledging any deficiency.
The Commission, after considering the arguments and evidence, noted instances of frequent service visits for engine oil-related issues. The complainant claimed these problems persisted during and after the warranty period. The commission observed that the complainant had experienced mental and physical harassment due to the recurring problem.
The Commission, while not granting the complainant’s request for a replacement, ordered the following:

  1. The Opposite Parties (OPs) were directed to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
  2. The OPs were further instructed to pay Rs.8,000 to the complainant as costs of litigation.
    The OPs were given thirty days to comply with the order, and failure to do so would result in additional interest at 12% per annum. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing consumer grievances and emphasized the need for compensation in cases of mental distress.
    The ruling showcases the significance of consumer protection and holds manufacturers and service providers accountable for addressing defects and ensuring customer satisfaction. The decision serves as a precedent for fair resolution in consumer disputes, reinforcing the importance of quality and service standards in the automotive industry.

Author of this article:
Adv. Ravish Bhatt,
Partner, R&D Law Chambers,
Dual Qualified Lawyer Solicitor | International Tax Affiliate

Connect with Mr. Bhatt on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adit-ravishbhatt/

  • Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information written above without first seeking legal advice from qualified law practitioner.
SideMenu