TOYATA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR LTD Vs. JAYESH T. TANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 being aggrieved by order dated 21.12.2012, passed by Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, 'State Commission') have filed the present revision petition.

(2.) Brief facts are that respondent no.1/complainant filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) (for short, 'District Forum') on the allegations that he purchased a Toyota Corolla from the petitioner no.2 on 21-8-2003 and within a week while driving the car, he found the yellow light indicating malfunction of some parameter. Though, the vehicle was sent to petitioner no.2's service centre, but the defect was not rectified. On the assurance given by petitioner no.2 that defects of MIL glow have been rectified, respondent no.1 took delivery of the vehicle. Later on when respondent no.1 travelled from Ooty to Madras, he again noticed the glow of the MIL and immediately stopped the vehicle and petitioner no.2 was contacted. Thereafter, the car was towed to the service station of petitioner no.2, who wrote letter dated 21.6.2005 that continuous driving has resulted in high engine heat and seizure of the engine and gave an estimate of Rs.1,39,292/- and a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards repair charges for engine overheat. Thus, it is clear that the inherent manufacturing defect existed from the first day. The MIL glow had been informed to petitioner no.2 occurring from January, 2005 to March, 2005 and the car was well within the period of warranty. Hence, respondent no.1 filed a complaint praying that petitioners be directed to replace the defective car by providing a new one and to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lac for mental agony, inconvenience, hardship and physical strain suffered by him and a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards travel expenses from 6-6-2005 till the date of disposal of the complaint and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) As per version of the petitioners, after inspection on 06.06.2005 the engine was suspected for seizure and therefore the petitioner no.2 has contacted the respondent no.1 and sought for his approval to dismantle the engine to conduct detailed examination. It is further stated that complainant gave the approval for dismantling on 11.06.2005 and accordingly the engine was dismantled on 13.06.2005. After dismantling the engine they found warpages (deformation, in general) on cylinder head and block. Petitioner no.2 thereafter contacted the respondent no.1 and explained about the seizure of the engine and further informed that the same can be rectified on chargeable basis. Further, only on persistent demand from the respondent no.1 to give in writing the cause of the damage suffered by his vehicle's engine, petitioner no.2 indicated in their letter dated 21st June, 2005 that there is a possibility of engine over heating, which was only their preliminary opinion, pending detailed investigation by them in association with technicians of petitioner no.1.