Case No. 92 of 2016. Case: Ravi Bhushan Sharma Vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 92 of 2016 |
| Judges | G.P. Mittal, J. (Member), S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4 |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 2016 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
Dr. Ravi Bhushan Sharma ('Informant') has filed this information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. ('OP') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
-
As per the information, the Informant had bought a Toyota Fortuner 4x4 MT from an authorised dealer and service centre of OP in Patna, Bihar i.e. Budha Toyota on 20.05.2015. It is averred that since the date of purchase of the said vehicle, the Informant has been facing several problems relating to the services of Budha Toyota. It is stated that at the time of taking delivery of the said vehicle, the Informant was told by the representative of Budha Toyota that the vehicle has 10 litres of fuel and the same is sufficient to travel for at least a 100 kms; however, the vehicle ran out of fuel only after 15 kms of driving. The Informant has alleged that he was cheated by Budha Toyota firstly in this regard. The Informant has also averred about the bad engine performance/fuel consumption performance of the said vehicle vis-à-vis the claim of the OP.
-
Secondly, as per the Informant, the pre-delivery inspection (PDI) of the said vehicle was not done properly by Budha Toyota. In this regard, it is averred that at the time of delivery, the clock of the vehicle was not set to show proper time and air pressure of the wheels of the said vehicle was not checked because of which it was giving a rough ride. As per the Informant, the personnel of Budha Toyota are either not well trained to do proper PDI of the vehicle or they deliberately neglected to provide proper PDI services to the Informant. In this regard, the Informant had written an email to the OP on 23.05.2015, but the OP had not provided satisfactory reply to him. It is also averred that the OP had also not provided reply to his query regarding the instructions for PDI to be carried out on the said vehicle.
-
Next, the Informant has stated that on 22.05.2015, the said vehicle met with an accident and it was taken to Budha Toyota for repairing. It is averred that the Informant had faced a lot of problems to get the vehicle repaired due to unavailability of spare parts such as 'Alloy Wheels' for the said vehicle at the said service centre of OP. Further, the Informant has alleged that the spare parts of the said vehicle are also not available in the Indian market as OP is their sole...
To continue reading
Request your trial