Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/85/2018

Harpreet Singh Nagpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Berkley Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	85 of 2018
Date of Institution	23.04.2018
Date of Decision	25.04.2018

 

Harpreet Singh Nagpal son of Arvinder Singh, resident of H.No.2604, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                             ....Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. Berkley Hyundai, Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phse-1, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.
2. Hyundai Motors India Limited (HMIL) 5^th, 6^th Floor Corporate One (Baani Building) Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110076 through its Managing Director.

                                ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate for the appellant.

                              

                  

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.03.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the appellant/complainant and directed the Opposite Parties as under:-

“14.     In view of above discussion, finding merit in the allegations of the Complainant, we allow the present complaint and pass the following orders:-

     [a]    To make payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation   to the Complainant for causing mental and physical harassment to him; 

        [b]     To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

15.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.”  

2.    The facts in brief, are that, the Complainant, purchased a Hyundai i20 Asta Car bearing Registration No.CH01-BE-8001 on 02.09.2015 from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.8,24,313/- after taking a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs.  It was stated that on the very next date i.e. 03.09.2015, the complainant visited the service centre of Opposite Party No.1, as the Audio Video Navigation system (AVN) was not working properly and the same was reset by it and it was assured that he would never face the same problem again in future. It was further stated that the same problem occurred again on 15.09.2015, for which the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 to get the repair/replacement of the same and it assured to replace the AVN system. It was further stated that after repeated requests and a number of visits of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 replaced the AVN system on 28.09.2015, but, during the process the dashboard of the newly branded car of the complainant was scratched/damaged. It was further stated that the complainant requested Opposite Party No.1 to replace the car, but, they did not accede to his request. It was further stated that the car was suffering from manufacturing defect, as the AVN system was replaced on eight different occasions and despite repeated requests/calls/visits, Opposite Parties failed to solve the manufacturing fault and further denied to replace the car.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3.   The Opposite Party No.1 in its written reply has stated that it provided best service and as and when the complainant pointed out any defect, the alleged defective part (AVN system/its camera/its SD card) was replaced without asking any question, to the satisfaction of the complainant, although such defect was not pointed out at that point of time. It was further stated that the dashboard of the vehicle of the complainant was not scratched/damaged. It was further stated that the vehicle of the complainant had no manufacturing defect. It was further stated that presently the AVN system fixed in the vehicle of the complainant has no defect and after 12.04.2016 till date no complaint regarding same had been lodged by the complainant.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the answering Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
4.   The Opposite Party No.2 in its written reply stated that the relationship between the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and HMIL i.e. Opposite Party No.2, is one of the principal to principal basis and not as a principal to agent, and therefore, Opposite Party No.2 could not be held liable for acts and omissions of dealer.  It was further stated that neither the complainant was given a defective manufactured car by Opposite Party No.1 nor there is any manufacturing defect in the car and also the complainant was not entitled for replacement of the car. It was further stated that after 12.04.2016 the vehicle reported only on 21.07.2016, for second free service at Berkley Auto LLP, but no concern relating to AVN or SD card or dash board was reported, which clearly indicates that the vehicle was running in perfect condition. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
5. The complainant filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties.
6. The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
8.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9.       We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11.         On going through the record of the case, the Audio Video Navigation System (AVN) of the Hyundai 120 Asta Car was replaced on eight different occasions as and when the appellant visited the respondents’ workshop. It has been averred by the respondents that even during the pendency of the complaint, the appellant had visited the workshop twice and the AVN system was replaced, meaning thereby, that on ten different occasions the AVN system has been replaced. The respondent No.1 is of the firm view that the vehicle had no inherent manufacturing defect. The various job sheets and written statements of the respondents also proved that the appellant’s request for replacement, was carried out ten times and the appellant himself has admitted that the car was efficiently running without any problem and we find that there is no proof on record to show that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect. We come to a solemn conclusion by going through the records that apart from the defective AVN system, which has been replaced ten times in total, there is no major defect in the vehicle, which would have led the vehicle incapable of use of operation. We find from the appeal, that there is no scope for further relief to the appellant and accordingly, the Forum has adequately compensated the appellant by granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.7000/-.
12.        No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
13.        In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

25.04.2018

                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/- 

          [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                                                                         [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

GP

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.85 of 2018)

(Harpreet Singh Nagpal Vs. Berkely Hyundai & Ors.)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate for the appellant.

 

Dated the 25^th day of April, 2018

 

ORDER

 

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.

 

      

 

 

Sd/-                                Sd/-                              Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

 

GP