DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Jai Gopal Verma son of Sh. Krishan Chand, resident of H.No.72/8, Subhash Nagar, Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

                                                 ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]   M/s Bhagat Singh & Co., Madhya Marg, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Mr. Arjan Singh.

[2]   Mr. Pankaj, representative of M/s Megha Advertising (Regd.), Campaign Organizers of M/s Bhagat Singh & Co., Madhya Marg, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

[3]       Hyundai Motor India Limited, A-30, DLF Tower-B, 3^rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park (IT Park), Chandigarh, through its Manager.

[4]       Hyundai Motor India Limited, A-30, Mohan Co-op. Industrial Area, Phase-I, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110 044, through its Managing Director.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        PRESIDING MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Sudhir Theari, Adv for Complainant.

Sh. Kabir Sarin, Adv for OP No.1.

OP No.2 deleted

Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Adv for OPs No.3 & 4.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.           Factually, the Complainant had purchased a new Hyundai Santro car on 19/10/2009 from “Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd.”, who is a Hyundai Dealer.  As per conditions of warranty the Complainant was entitled to three free services from any dealer of Hyundai. The 1^st service of the car was done as per schedule on 09/12/2009 from the said Dealer. 

              The Complainant has alleged that on 14/07/2010, the Complainant was approached by one Mr. Pankaj (OP No.2), Campaign Organizer of M/s Bhagat Singh & Co. (OP No.1), with a Platinum offer for getting the Complainant’s Santro car serviced from OP No.1. A booklet containing various coupons for various free offers was shown to the Complainant like vehicle check-up, wheel alignment, car wash etc. The cost of offer was Rs.600/- for two years. The Complainant purchased the booklet by paying Rs.600/- in cash.

              But on 21/07/2010 when the Complainant approached OP No.1 to avail the 2nd free service of his car, he was surprised when OP No.1 refused to do the free service stating that since 9 months had expired from the purchase of car, the entitlement for 2nd free service was over. The Complainant has stated that as per service schedule of Hyundai Company the Complainant was entitled to three free services within a period of one year from the date of purchase of his Car from any Hyundai Dealer/ Authorized Service Centre.  Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd. from where he had purchased his car. No objection was raised for delay of the 2nd free service by this Dealer.

              The Complainant then sent an e-mail to the Customer Care Centre of Hyundai Company on 23/07/2010 followed by a number of other e-mails with his complaint for unfair trade practice of OP No.1 and requested for a refund of Rs.600/- spent by him on the purchase of booklet of coupons besides compensation. Despite exchange of many e-mails between the parties the grievance of the Complainant has not yet been redressed by the OPs. The Complainant was meanwhile offered a refund of Rs.600/- only paid to OP No.1. The Complainant has thus filed this complaint with a prayer for refund of the amount along with compensation and cost of litigation.  The Complainant has placed on record copy of coupon booklet, legal notice, as well as correspondence exchanged with the OPs, along with the complaint.   

2.           After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.           OP No.1 in reply has taken the preliminary objection that they were always ready and willing to perform the services purchased by the Complainant. Further, when the Complainant approached the Service Centre of OP No.1 for service of his Santro car, the car service was three months overdue and the scrutiny of the service documents revealed that in the event the service was performed, the Complainant would be at risk of loosing his car warranty as per the terms & conditions imposed at the time of purchase by the Manufacturer. The Complainant in fact misinterpreted the advice given to him. OP No.1 has also submitted that they extended written, as well as oral communication to the Complainant to accept the service within the guidelines imposed by the Manufacturer. The OP No.1 also offered a full refund of Rs.600/- spent by him on the coupons, if he wanted.

              On merits, OP No.1 has reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. According to OP No.1, the compensation of Rs.20,000/- demanded by the Complainant for the alleged mental harassment is not due to him. Denying all other allegations of the Complainant, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint, with cost.

4.           At the request of learned counsel for the Complainant, the name of OP No.2 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 12.10.2011.

5.           OPs No. 3 & 4 in their joint reply have denied all allegations made by the Complainant, as the Complainant has no legal or valid cause of action for initiating the present proceedings. The Company has asked OP No.1 to resolve the issue with the Complainant as the coupons given by OP No.1 is purely a business offer of OP No.1 to the Complainant. Further, the Complainant was provide with three free service coupons at the time of purchase and all three free service coupons have been availed by the Complainant.

              In the para-wise reply, OPs No.3 & 4 have reiterated that the Complainant had availed all the free services as per warranty from them. OPs No.3 & 4 have denied all the allegations of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

8.           The issue is primarily based on denial by OP No.1 (M/s Bhagat Singh & Co.) to provide a free service to the Complainant as per conditions of warranty on the purchase of vehicle. In support of his contentions, the Complainant has placed on record a copy of the service booklet to substantiate that all the three requisite services were provided to him by Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd. A perusal of this booklet shows as under:-

              A perusal of aforesaid details shows that Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd. has extended the benefit of the free service to the Complainant beyond the specific requirement as per the free service coupon. This is obviously a goodwill gesture by the Seller to his Customer to maintain good and cordial relation for the future also. A goodwill gesture by one Dealer cannot be construed to be deficiency in service by the other.  

9.           OP No.1 has placed on record the letter of intent issued by Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (HMIL) to them, by which HMIL has agreed to make them a Hyundai Authorized Service Centre.  Page 6 of the said letter of intent relates to “Scope of Activities”. The relevant portion of this reads as under:- 

3. You are not authorized to carry out repair/ replacement under warranty and make commitment for replacement of part on FOC basis which may create confusion in the mind of Customers Incase customer approaches you for any warranty request, you will promptly advise the customer to contact the relevant dealer.”

Relying on the above guidelines, OP No.1 has categorically stated that they had guided the Complainant to visit the Dealer from whom he had purchased the vehicle, where he would be adjusted for the free service. They have offered to refund Rs.600/- paid by the Complainant for the Coupons.

10.         The allegations of the Complainant against OPs No.3 & 4 stand no ground as their Dealer (Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd.) has honoured the committed as per the conditions of warranty.  OP No.1 has not extended the facility to the Complainant due to the constraints of letter of intent, reproduced above, but has guided the Complainant to visit the concerned Dealer. The Complainant has got his service done from the concerned dealer i.e. Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd. No actual loss has been caused to him by Op No.1.

11.         Relying on the material placed on record, as well as the oral submissions, we do not find any merit in the complaint. However, the Complainant is at liberty to accept the refund of Rs.600/- already offered by OP No.1. The case against OPs No.3 & 4 is dismissed, as no deficiency in service against them is proved. OP No.2 has already been deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 12.10.2011. The matter is disposed off accordingly.

12.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd January, 2012.                                                       

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING EMBER

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER