No Expert Report To Substantiate Manufacturing Defect, Himachal Pradesh State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Toyota , Its Dealer

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Fortuner Sigma-4 Package 2.8L 6AT from the Anand Toyota (“dealer”) for Rs. 34,13,400/-. He also paid Rs. 93,023/- for accessories and Rs. 1,16,477/- for insurance, totalling Rs. 36,22,900/- at the time of delivery. The vehicle was delivered on 11.08.2017 at 6:00 PM. However, after driving 30 kilometres from the agency, the car displayed a malfunction indicator on the dashboard, suggesting a '2WD-4WD mode change malfunction'.

The Complainant informed the Dealer the next day. He was advised to have the vehicle checked at Silvermoon Toyota in District Kangra. On 21.08.2017, he followed this advice, but the agency could not rectify the defect, merely reporting that the malfunction light was checked and found okay. After persistent requests, mechanics from the Dealer's side visited the Complainant's home and took the vehicle to their workshop. They reported that the transfer actuator was not working properly and needed replacement, which was ordered under warranty.

Despite replacing the actuator, the problem persisted even after the vehicle had run 20,959 kilometres. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (“State Commission”). The Complainant alleged that Dealer, in connivance with Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”), sold him a defective vehicle and failed to resolve the issue.

The Manufacturer raised preliminary objections such as lack of cause of action, misjoinder of parties, and suppression of material facts by the Complainant. On merits, it denied selling a defective vehicle and claimed the Complainant mishandled it, causing the fault in the transfer actuator. It argued that replacing the actuator under warranty did not entitle the Complainant to a vehicle replacement and that there was no deficiency in service on its part. No one appeared on behalf of the Dealer for the proceedings.

Observations of the State Commission:

The State Commission found that job cards and inspection reports indicated that the vehicle had been regularly serviced and checked. The issues were noted during service and the defective parts were replaced under warranty. The vehicle had been driven extensively, suggesting ongoing usage despite the alleged defects. The Complainant did not provide any expert reports or affidavits from mechanics to substantiate claims of a manufacturing defect.

Therefore, the State Commission held that there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect or deficiency in service by the Manufacturer or the Dealer. The complaint was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

Case Title: Amit Rana vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 06/2018

Advocate for the Complainant: Mr Ravinder Singh Chandel

Advocate for the Respondent (Manufacturer): Mr Manoj Sharma vice Mr Peeyush Verma

Date of Pronouncement: 18.07.2024