Vineet Khurana Vs. Pioneer Toyota and Another - Court Judgment

K.C. Gupta, President:

1. This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 20.9.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was accepted and it was held that OP had failed to render proper service to the complainant as the defective windshield had caused much harassment and mental torture to him, so, the District Consumer Forum directed OP to replace the windshield with a new one having least distortion, within permissible limit and further to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental torture and harassment besides Rs. 2,100 as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Col. Shamsher Singh purchased an Innova model 2.5V car on 19.10.2005 from respondent No. 1 M/s. Pioneer Toyota for Rs. 8,66,582 vide Annexure C-1. On the same day appellant informed the sales Manager of respondent No. 1 that there was distortion in the front windshield which caused the images to appear waivy on the extreme left and right hand side of the vehicle. This fact was also brought to the notice of respondent No. 2-Toyota Kirloskar Motor Limited. The vehicle was got examined by respondent No. 1 but the windshield was not changed. Respondent No. 2 also got examined the vehicle and stated that the distortion of windshield was within tolerance i.e. permissible limit.

3. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

4. The respondents filed joint written reply and stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and none on their behalf had told that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. They further stated that slight distortion at the edges was normal and within parameters and level of distortion would vary depending on distance between the driver and the windscreen, etc.. They further stated that it was common phenomenon for all types of windscreens. They next stated that their technicians and that of M/s Asahi India Glass Limited who were the manufacturers of the windshield had conducted optical distortion tests and secondary image tests into the complaint made by the appellant and found that quality of the windshield was within the parameters and met the statutory regulations. The copy of the result of optical quality test is Annexure R-1.

5. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

6. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 20.9.2007 accepted the complaint as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

7. Still dissatisfied, the complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation and for replacement of windshield which was not having even the least defect.

8. We have heard Counsel for appellant Sh. Manish Jain and carefully gone through the file.

9. The respondents have categorically stated that their technicians alongwith the technician of M/s. Asahi India Glass Limited who were manufacturers of the windshield had conducted optical distortion tests and secondary image tests and found that the windshield was within parameters and statutory regulations. However, still they had offered the appellant to get the windshield replaced. The appellant refused to get windshield replaced as he wanted the windshield to be replaced with windshield which was not having any sort of distortion at all. There was no question of replacement of vehicle if windshield was defective. Although, the respondents had stated that the distortion in the edges of windshield was within parameters, yet they offered to replace the same with a new windshield having least distortion and within permissible limit. For this reason, the District Consumer Forum had directed the respondents to replace the windshield with a new one having least distortion within parameters and further awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 for mental harassment and agony. In our opinion, order made by the District Consumer Forum is perfectly O.K. because sufficient amount had been awarded as compensation for mental harassment, etc. besides replacing windshield.

10. We concur with the reasoning given by the District consumer Forum and hold that there is no merit in the appeal for enhancement of compensation or to replace the windshield having no distortion at all at the edges. Hence, appeal is dismissed in limine.

11. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.