H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: 70/2023 Date of Presentation: 17.04.2023 Order reserved on: 19.06.2025 Date of Decision: 25.06.2025 …………………………………………………………………

Toyota Silvermoon Motors Pvt. Ltd., VPO Hatwas, Tehsil Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P.

Through its Manager.

…....... Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Ghanshyam Singh, Son of Late Shri Chamel Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Samirpur, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

........Respondent/Complainant

2. Toyota India, No.24, Canerra Block, Vittal Mallya Road, Banglore-56001, Karnataka, Through its General Manager.

........Respondent/Opposite party No.2 …………………………………………………………………

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Mr. Partap Singh Thakur, Member Hon’ble Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant: Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate.

(Though was already deleted)

…………………………………………………………………

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R:

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 20.02.2023 of learned District Consumer Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, passed in

1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Consumer Complaint No.53/2018, titled Ghanshyam Brief facts of Case:

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a vehicle Toyota Etios Cross from the opposite party No.1. On 14.03.2017, during the service of vehicle, the complainant noted that the consumption of engine oil in the vehicle in question is not normal and vehicle is consuming more engine oil. The opposite party No.1/dealer top up engine oil on the same day, but complainant again found the same problem and opposite party No.1 thereafter on 22.06.2017 replaced the vacuum pump under warranty to resolve the problem, but the said fault remained as it is. The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 many times, but his grievance was not redressed. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1 filed reply and stated that opposite party No.1 is not the manufacturer of vehicle in question, but only has sold the vehicle to the complainant in good condition. The complainant did not get the service of his vehicle done from time to time as per the norms of the opposite party No.2 and has thus breached the terms & conditions of the warranty. The complainant has not produced any expert/technical report/opinion from any qualified person or agency and has also not produced his vehicle anywhere to prove manufacturing defect in the engine of vehicle in question. The opposite party No.1 has performed its duty. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1.

4. The opposite party No.2 also filed reply and stated that opposite party No.2 is dealing with the opposite party No.1 on Principal to Principal Basis and as such, is not in any manner responsible for the alleged defects in the vehicle purchased. There is nothing on record to show that the vehicle suffers from any inherent manufacturing defect. From the allegations made it seems that the complainant has been misusing and mishandling the vehicle in question and repeatedly bringing the same to the workshop of opposite party No.1 as and when any minor defect arises on account of misuse and mishandling of vehicle. The opposite party No.1 had issued a letter dated 22.06.2017 to complainant informing him that after thorough investigation by technical team it was revealed that there is no manufacturing defect. The consumption of engine oil or consequent replenishment to extent consumed by way of topping it up, happens to be a normal &/or inherent characteristic of machinery. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposi