Haryana

Sonipat

257/2014

RAKESH KUMAR S/O RAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. HYUNDI MOTORS INDIA LTD.,2. MALWA AUTO SALE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Bhopal Singh

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

 

                             Complaint No.257 of 2014

                             Instituted on:29.09.2014

                             Date of order:02.11.2015

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Ran Singh, resident of village Ashwarpur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1.M/s Hundai Motors India Ltd., 5^th and 6^th Floor, Corporate 1, Baani Building, Plot no.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, Delhi-25 through its Managing Director.

2.Malwa Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Kundli, Sonepat through its Authorized person.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Bhopal Singh, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Kuldeep Solanki, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Kamal Hooda, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

          D.V. Rathi, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 16.10.2013 he has purchased Elantra 1.6 CRDI Car from respondent no.2, lateron registered vide registration no.HR-12W-0022. After its purchase, the complainant came to know that there is a mechanical fault in the vehicle as at high speed, the vehicle pulls towards its left side.  The complainant made complaints in this regard to the respondents. The alignment of the vehicle was done with the assurances that now there will be no problem, but it was the false assurance.  The complainant lodged so many complaints with the respondents, but the said problem still persist. There is manufacturing mechanical defect in the vehicle.  The complainant has requested the respondents either to replace the vehicle with new one of the same model or to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest and compensation, but this request of the complainant has ended into smoke and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

 

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

 

         The respondent no.1 has submitted in the written statement that the complainant is alleging left side pulling merely on the basis of his assumption and apprehension without any evidence.  Whenever the complainant made a complaint with regard to left side pulling, the vehicle was inspected but no pulling was observed and vehicle was returned in perfect running condition.  The complainant has used the vehicle extensively for 42912 kms as on 18.2.2015 in less than 15 months of its purchase.  The manufacturing defects, if any, would have manifested earlier, the vehicle could not have been used for such a long period and for such a long distance. Frequent accident affects the vehicle performance.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents and so, he is not entitled for any relief by way of present complaint and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         In reply, the respondent no.2 has submitted that the complainant brought his vehicle with complaint of left side pulling, but after inspection, no such complaint was found and after due satisfaction, the complainant has signed the satisfactory note and took the delivery of the said vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the respondent no.2.

3.       We have heard learned counsel for both the parties length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle as the vehicle pulls towards left side and this problem cannot be removed due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the vehicle with new one or for the refund of its cost alongwith interest.

 

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the complainant is alleging left side pulling merely on the basis of his assumption and apprehension without any evidence.  Whenever the complainant made a complaint with regard to left side pulling, the vehicle was inspected but no pulling was observed and vehicle was returned in perfect running condition.  The complainant has used the vehicle extensively for 42912 kms as on 18.2.2015 in less than 15 months of its purchase. Frequent accident affects the vehicle performance.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents and so, he is not entitled for any relief by way of present complaint.

 

5.       After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that the main motive of the complainant is to get replaced his old vehicle with new one, but this cannot be allowed by this Forum since the complainant has failed to lead any expert evidence in support of his case to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and the same is unrepairable.  The perusal of the document Annexure C itself shows that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.11.2013 and till 13.4.2014, the vehicle runs 17543 kilometer. Further  the complainant has used the vehicle extensively for 42912 kms as on 18.2.2015 in less than 15 months of its purchase. In our view, the manufacturing defects, if any, would have manifested earlier, the vehicle could not have been used for such a long period and for such a long distance.  In our view, the complainant’s intention is to get replaced his vehicle with new one, but it cannot be allowed because the complainant has failed to lead any concrete evidence in the shape of any expert report or opinion which may go to prove that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and the said defects are beyond repair.  So, in the absence of the expert report/opinion, the vehicle of the complainant cannot be replaced with new one and thus, we have no hesitation to dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs as it has no merit.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi)                (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF     Member DCDRF              DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:02.11.2015