Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/75

Rajinder Singh Bains - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhakra Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
RUPNAGAR PUNJAB

Consumer Complaint No.		75 of 2021
Date of Institution		21.10.2021
Date of Decision		28.07.2023

 

Rajinder Singh Bains aged about 3 7 years son of  Bakhtawar Singh Bains resident of H. No. 13 Dashmesh Colony Rupnagar Tehsil and Distt. Rupnagar).

                Complainant

Versus

1. Bhakra HundaiRangilpurKurali  New Toll Plaza SalkhionRoad Ropar Tehsil and Distt. Rupnagar through its Manager.
2. Hyundai India Ltd., Plot no. Hl Sipcot Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumdudur, Taluk , Kancheepuram District Tamilnadu 602105 through its Manager.
3. Hyundai India Ltd. North Regional Office Unit no. C-113-114 , First Floor Office Suites Elante plot no. 178-178-A Industrial and Business park Phase-1 Chandigarh 160002.

            Respondents

                        Complaint u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act a

                                amended upto date.

QUORUM

                Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, President

                Ms. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER               

                RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For complainant              :               Sh. NarinderPrashar  Advocate

For OP No.1                     :               Sh. MandeepMoudgil Advocate

For OP No. 2  & 3             :               Sh. SahilVashishat, Advocate

ORDER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Shri Rajinder Singh Bains (hereinafterreferred to as the complainant) against above referred respondents under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act) and made averments in his complaint as under that the complainant has purchased i20 car bearing Registration No. PB-12-AE-7876 from the respondent no.l (hereinafter referred to as the OP1).That on 8.5.2020 the above said car of the complainant met with an accident and in the said accident the vehicle of the complainanthas been damaged badly.Complainant had immediately approached theOP 1 for the repair of the above said car and parked his car in the premises of the OP.l on 23.5.2020 and OP.l assured the complainant that they will make the delivery of the said car up to 24.6.2020 after getting it repaired but OP l has not made the delivery of the said car up to 24.6.2020. Then the OP l has made phone call to the complainant regarding repair of the car in question,when the complainant checked his car and found that there were so many problems in the car i.e. Engine disturbance , engine knocking, injector problem, re-colour, suspension and then the complainant told the OP.l to solve the above said problems of car and then the respondent no.l has sought some time to solve the problems and then on 31.08.2020 the respondent no.l had informed the complainant that his vehicle was fully repaired and they asked the complainant to take the delivery of the car and on reaching the premises of the OP.l the complainant found that the above said problems persisted in the car. OP No.l  asked the complainant to firstly take the delivery of his car and assured that they will replace the car of the complainant with new car.The complainant has made the payment of Rs.4,10,000/- in cash including the salvage chargers to the OP.land the complainant took the delivery Of the car. The OP l has issued the bill to the complainant and the OP.l gave receipt of the amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- i.e. the amount paid by the complainant. On the same day the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.2,05,000/- through RTGS and Rs.1,95,000/- in cash i.e. total Rs. 4 lacs with the OP No. 1.That so for theOPl has not replaced car of the complainant with the new Creta Car nor returned the amount of Rs.4 lacs to the complainant nor repaired the car of the complainant.The complainant had also got served a registered AD Legal notice upon the OPs through his counsel Sh. NarinderPrashar Advocate, Ropar which was received by the respondents, but in spite of it , the respondents neither replied to the legal notice nor paid any heed to the requests of the complainant. The complainant alleged that there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.Lastly the complainant prayed for reliefs from OPS; to return the amount of Rs. 4 lacs to the complainant; to repair the car of the complainant;OP be directed to replace the car of the complainant with new creta car; to Pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment as damages along with interest at the rate of 18% PA from the date of accident till its realization in the interest of justice and  the complaint may kindly be allowed.
2. Upon notice, the OPS appeared and filed written reply took    various Preliminary Objections.It is further alleged that is no      deficiency of service on the part of theanswering OP and further         there is no unfair trade practice on the part of answeringOP. and as such the same deserves dismissal.That the complainant came to the workshop of the answering OP for repair of his accidental car in question which needed time to repair. He requested for courtesy car to be given to him for his daily use, so that his work may not get disturbed and as per his request he was given a used Swift desire car bearing reg. No. PB-65-P-8653 for use inthe meantime.That on 30.09.2020 the complainant came to the workshop of the answeringOP for checking the status of his car and the same was ready, so the complainant asked for test drive and as such the director of the answering OP namely SH. Anuj Chhabra allowed to test ride with him and during the test drive the complainant suddenly started quarrelling with Sh. Anuj Chhabra and he stopped the car nearvillage Singh, Distt. Rupnagar, dropped Sh. AnujChhabra thereand the complainant ran away with the car.Thatthereafter the complaint was made by the answering OP to the       S.H.O,PS City Rupnagar as well as to the Secretary BLSA, Rupnagar on 06.10.2020 and 13.10.2020 respectively. Upon which the complainant returned the swift desire car mentioned aboveThe i20 car which was got repaired by the complainant from theanswering OP was taken away by the complainant to his full satisfaction and as such now the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint.On MeritsOP1 reiterated the averments of the preliminary objections which need not to be repeated here for the sake of brevityand further submitted that the question of replacing the said car does not arise at all.Lastly the OP1 payed that the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with costs, in the interest of justice.
3. OP. 2 & 3 appeared and filed written reply on averments in PreliminaryObjections that OP No. 2&3 is acompany registered under theCompanies Act, 1956 having it’s having itsregistered office at Irrungattukottai, NH-4, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu-606117and manufacturesautomobiles and parts thereof under the         brand name ‘Hyundai’. That the present complaint is frivolous, misconceived and without any merit whatsoever qua the OP No. 2 & 3 who denies all and in singular, the averments, contentions, submissions and allegations made in the complaint and that the complainant has failed to establish any grounds for seeking relief from the OP No. 2 & 3in the present complaint andin view of the same, the Answering OPs craves the indulgence of this Hon’bleCommission to raise preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the present complaint qua the OP No. 2  & 3.That the Complainant has failed to substantiate any allegations raised against the OP No. 2  & 3. in the present Complaint.On a perusal of the complaint so filed before this Hon’bleCommission, it becomes evident that the allegations revolve squarely around deficiency in Service by the Respondent No.1. Being the manufacturer of vehicle, the liability of the manufacturer is limited to the warranty obligations/performance obligations/manufacturing defects. Therefore, it is submitted that the Complainant has failed to        show that any cause of action has arisen to  the Complainant. in so far as  OP No. 2  & 3 are concerned. Therefore, the present    complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP No. 2  & 3.In parawise reply OP 2 & 3 reiterated the averments of the preliminary objections which need not to be repeated here for the sake of brevity.Lastly the OP 2 & 3 payed that there exists no deficiencies in service on the part of the   OP 2 & 3 thereby dismiss the present complaint qua the OP 2 & 3.

4. In support of his case, complainant has submitted in evidenceself affidavit as EX-C1, legal notice dated 11.8.21 Ex-C2, Bill dated 6.8.2020 EX-C3, Bill dated 6.8.20 Ex-C4, original postal receipts Ex C-5, Insurance policy Ex-C6, original bill dated 1.8.2020 EXC-7, original bill dated 1.8.2020 consumer Ex-C8, Consumer Satisfaction form Ex-C9, Ex C-10, Copy of mail dated 23.7.2020 Ex-C10, mail dated 28.7.2020 Ex-C11, mail dated 23.7.2020 Ex-C12, dated 28/7/2020, Message dated 23.5.2020 Ex-C13, Receiving by  bhakhra Hyundai dated 31-08-2020 Ex-C14, copy of F.I.R. Ex-C15.
5. In support of his caseOP1 submitted in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. AnujChabra MD of Bhakhra Service Station asEx-OPl/A and various document Ex-OP1/B to Ex-OP1/L. Whereas OP 2& 3 submitted in evidence affidavit of Sh. Hemant Makkar, Manager Legal Ex.OP2/A along with document copy of dealership agreement with OP No.lEx.OP2/B.
6. We have gone through the written reply and pleadings of counsels of the OP2 &3 and has observed that complainant has nowherealleged OP2 &3 for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. WhereasOP2 &3 had pleaded being the manufacturer of vehicle, the liability of the manufacturer is limited to the warranty obligations/performance obligations/manufacturing defects.
7. We have also noted from record or pleadings that complainant himself has placed two receipts of payment to OPI. Ex-C7 isReceipt no. 25099 dated 01-08-2020 pertains to cash payment of Rs.1,95,000/- and Receipt no. 25098 dated 01-08-2020 pertains to cash payment of Rs. 2,05,000/- , totaling Rs 4,00,000/- made in cash by complaint to OP1. Another document placed on record by

the complainant Ex-C3 is the Bill  issued in the name of complainant as Rajinder Singh Bains, invoice no. B202004393 Dated 06-08-2020for Rs. 4,10,185/-. On the last page of this bill Ex-C14 it is written as under:-

“ 4 Lakh ....... cash Against  Vehi. i20 no. PB12AE 7876 & Rs.  10,000/- swap.  Total Rcd Amount 4,10,000/-

SD/- 31/08/2020.”

        So it is clear that whatever payment is made by the        complainant to theOP1 is forthe repair of the accidental vehiclein question in this instant caseand also there is nothing on record placed by the complainant which suggests replacing the accidental car in question with new car of base model of Creta by OP1 to complainant, and on payment of additional amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Thus complainant has failed to prove the case of  exchange of vehicle as alleged in the complaint.

8. As per discussion in the subsequent paras above, keeping in view of the fact and circumstances,from the perusal of the file it was observed that:-

“It is also found that what has been alleged by the complainant in this case same has not been proved and but has not been alleged the same is proved”.   

9. In view of our above discussion the present complaint on merits deserves dismissal. However, no order as to cost.  Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.The complaint could not be decided  within the statutory period due to paucity of staff.

Pronounced on:- 28-07-2023

 

 

(Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                          (Ranvir Kaur)                                      (S.K. Aggarwal)

                Member                                                     Member                                                   President