Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/110

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan Kumar Verma

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.        :110of 26.07.2022

             Date of Decision                     :24.03.2023

 

Rohit Kumar aged about 28 years son of Sh.Ram Pal Resident of Village Rampur, Near NaagBalaMandir, Ward No.2, Tehsil& District – Una (H.P.).

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Bhakra Service Station Private Limited, Dealer of Hyundai Motor India Limited, through its Proprietor, Office Address: - Ropar to Kurali Road, NH-21, Near Toll Barrier Ropar, Ropar, Punjab – 140108.
2. Hyundai Motor India Limited Registered Office & Factory Location: Kanchipuram, Address: Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, SriperumbudurTaluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602117, through its MD and CEO.
3. Hyundai Motor India Limited, North Regional Office, Location: Chandigarh Address: Unit No.C-113-114, 1^st Floor, Office Suites Elante, Plot No. 178-178A, Industrial & Business Park Phase 1, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Regional Manager.

      …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant             :         Sh.Krishan Kumar Verma, Advocate

For Op No.1                            :         Ex parte

For OP No.2&3             :         Sh.Amit Pal Kahlon, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, the counsel for complainant has averred thatcomplainant is consumer of OPs as he purchased a four wheeler from OP-1 on 15.09.2021, and OP No.2 is MD and CEO of Hyundai Motor India Limited (hereinafter write as HMIL) and Op No.3 is head of north regional office of HMIL.  At the time of purchase of 4 wheeler car model Hyundai Venue, Varian – SX (Diesel), Ex showroom price of the car was Rs.10,34,644/- and out of total ex showroom price, complainant has given Rs.5000/- as booking amount Rs.1,50,000/- cash and rest amount of Rs.8,79,644/- has paid through car loan from ICICI Bank Limited.  Complainant insured the vehicle with Aditya Birla Insurance Company and given premium of Rs.29218/-.  Further, register the car in his name with RTO Una having registration No.HP20J7200 and total expenditure for the registration is Rs.75,000/- approximately.  Thus the vehicle totally costing to complainant for Rs.1034644+29218+75000=11,38,862/-.  After 15 days of purchase of vehicle, the running of vehicle was 600 km then firstly diesel particular filter (hereinafter called as DPF) spotted in instrument cluster, and due to that error the vehicle lost its pickup, further as consequences vehicle run only below the speed of 40 KM/per hour.  This happening caused great shocked to complainant and complainant charm of new car totally washed away.  He immediately approached to the service centre of HMIL running by OP-1 but the technician who have poor knowledge about their work, did not understand the actual defect in car, and they wrongly changed diesel oil filter in the car but no use and DPF error not resolved in car.  The details of manufacturing defect and unfair trade and practice by all OP.At the time of three months car was with service centre of OP-1 and when the issue has not been resolved by technicians of OP-1, then one special technician from Chandigarh visit the service centre of OP-1, then he identified the actual problem of DPF error, and he tried to regenerate the same, it is pertinent to mention here that for this regeneration process the criteria is that the engine of the vehicle must be run at 2500 to 300 RPM for 35-40 minutes at standing position and this process consume 10 to 12 litre diesel and once regeneration done then as per vehicle specification the same error will not come till next 25000 km.But in the case of complainant car same will have happen after every 400/500 KM and that one is manufacturing defect.  When after regeneration process the complainant running the vehicle about 500 KM, then the same problem of DPF come again and then the complainant again complaining the same to service centre of HMIL run by OP-1 then again technician tried to regenerate the DPF but of no use.  The same problem have occurred again and again and the OPs failed to justify the same and till today the car has regenerated 13-14 times but problem is as it is.  Some service sheet issued by the OP on different dates i.e. 11.10.2021, 16.10.2021, 08.02.2022, 12.04.2022, 21.05.2022, 31.05.2022, 28.06.2022, 12.07.2022.  Instead of service centre visits the complainant had made numerous complaints to OPs through all possible way regarding his grievances about manufacturing defect in car on too many dates i.e. 20.01.2022, 21.05.2022, 23.05.2022, 26.05.2022, 30.05.2022, 03.06.2022, 16.06.2022, 20.06.2022, 22.06.2022, 27.06.2022, 29.06.2022, 11.03.2022, 10.04.2022, 26.05.2022, 03.06.2022, 15.06.2022, 16.06.2022, 22.06.2022, 27.06.2022 and whatsapp chat with HMIL executives from 30.01.2022 to 28.06.2022.  The vehicle has covered with 3 years/unlimited kilometer warranty, but the main problem with vehicle is that the vehicle have manufacturing defect of Diesel Particular Filter with impossible to remove, as number of services has done by OP company, within very short span of time and even after major repair by replacement of DPF entire part has done by OP company in February 2022 and when the complainant has shown his dissatisfaction and harassment, then the OP-1 has given written undertaking to complaint on 03.02.2022 and assured the complainant that in case DPF problem will arise again then the vehicle will surely replaced with new one, however when the same problem has occurred again then OP-1 had given different excuses instead of replace the vehicle.  Lastly prayer has been made that the OPs be directed to refund the whole amount of defective care with up to  date interest and OPs be directed to pay Rs.2 Lakh as monetary loss, Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses or in alternative OPs be directed to replace the goods/vehicle with new same model. 
2. Despite wait, OP No.1has failed to appear and ultimately was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.02.2023.
3. OP No.2&3 has appeared through counsel and file written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that  complainant has no locus standi; complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; complainant has suppressed the material facts; since the complainant car is equipped with DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) which is a requirement in order to comply with BS6.  The purpose of DPF is to remove diesel particulate or soot from the exhaust gas.  It has been clearly mention that with time, soot many accumulate in the DPF filter and for that car has to be run on certain speed for certain duration so that the soot may be automatically be removed from the DPF.  Working of DPF is that:

“The Diesel Particulate Filter system removes the soot in the exhaust gas.

The DPF system automatically burns the accumulate soot in accordance with driving situations, unlike a disposable air filter.

In other words, the accumulated soot is automatically purged out by the engine control system and by the high exhaust gas temperature in normal driving condition.

However, when the vehicle is continually driven at low speed for a long time, the accumulated soot may not be automatically removed because of law exhaust gas temperature.

In this case, the accumulate soot is out of detection range, the soot oxidization process does not occur, and the Diesel Particulate Filter (DF) lamp illuminates.

The Diesel filter (DPF) Lamp stops illuminating, when the driving speed exceeds 60 km/h (37 mph) or when the engine rpm is between 1500 and 2500 with the gear in the 2^nd position or above for approximately 25 minutes.

When the DPF Lamp continuously blinks or the warming message “Check exhaust system” illuminating in the above cases, they recommended that you have the DPF system checked by an authorized Hyundai dealer.”

4. Said fact was also communicated to the complainant through email in which the whole working of DPF system was also explained again for the satisfaction; there is no manufacturing defect in the complainant vehicle and further complainant has failed to prove his claim of manufacturing defect by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of expert report from any appropriate laboratory recognized by Central Government or Recognized by State Government or laboratory or organization established by or under any law as contemplated U/s 38 (2) (c) of CPA 2019; no money from sale consideration or the vehicle was paid to HMIL. Complainant himself stated that he had paid money for purchase of car to OP No.1.Thus, from this fact it is clear that no money has been paid to HMIL and hence it cannot be held liable for refunding the same.On merits, purchase of vehicle by complainant is admitted.Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5. In order to prove their respective versions, parties produced on the file their respective documents.
6.  
7. During arguments, the contentions of learned counsel for parties are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same.  The main controversy in the present complaint is whether the OPs have deficient in providing service to complainant or not?  To solve this issue.  On perusal of documents it is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 15.09.2021 for which he paid an amount of Rs.11,38,862/- with RC and insurance.  Complainant alleged that immediately after its purchase within thirty days the vehicle started developing technical defects.  It was brought to the notice of OPs on dated 11.10.2021, 16.10.2021, 08.02.2022, 17.04.2022, 21.05.2022, 31.05.2022, 28.06.2022, 12.07.2022, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-13) and also by email on 20.01.2022, 21.05.2022, 23.05.2022, 26.05.2022, 30.05.2022, 16.06.2022, 06.08.2022, 07.08.2022 (Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-41).
8. The OPs have taken stand that the vehicle was under warranty and they repaired the vehicle in question free of costs.  OPs averred that on the request of complainant they repaired DPF and also extended the warranty for 5 years (Ex.C-33).  OPs took the stand that customer satisfaction form –Ex.OP2/1 was signed by the complainant himself on 11.04.2022.  On perusal of document it is observed that even after getting satisfaction report on 11.04.2022 the vehicle was sent for repairs on the same issue many a times in the workshop OPs and till date also the same problem exists.  We are not very much convinced with the stand taken by OPs.  On perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant, we observed that the complainant adducted in his evidence Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-41 many job cards, which shows that repeated repairs were done in very short span of 10 months and still vehicle in question in giving the same problem.  It is also observed that an expert/engineer visited from Chandigarh to check the vehicle, then also vehicle was not repaired.  Hence, we are of the concerted view that within 10 months of purchase of vehicle.  It required substantial repairs repeatedly, which shows that there were inherent defects in the  vehicle.  The number of job cards prove that vehicle was taken for repairs many times when vehicle has gone for repairs for 1-15 times within a period of 10 months, this itself is clearly indicative that the vehicle in question had inherent manufacturing defect and does not requires any expert opinion.  We also rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission Hind Motors (I) Ltd, &Anr, Tata Motors Vs Lakhbir Singh &Anr 1(2014) CLT 120 (NC), the relevant para No.19 of the said judgment reproduced as:-

“19. Furthermore, within eight months of selling of the vehicle, as per petitionersown case, it required substantial repairs worth Rs.2.25 lakh. This itself goes on to show that there were inherent defects in the vehicle, that is, why it required substantial repairs. Under such circumstances, no expert opinion is required as the facts of the case itself speaks that major repairs were required just after short span of eight months from the date of the sale of the vehicle.”

9. The case law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Tata Motors Ltd. versus Bishamber Nath Sikka and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 306 is applicable in the present case, wherein it has been held that it is very clear that vehicle did suffer from defects, as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time. The owner of the vehicle is not expected to take such vehicle to the workshop, unless the vehicle suffers from a genuine defect. It becomes duty of the manufacturer as well as dealer to solve the problem of the complainant and ensure that the vehicle is delivered back to him in a road-worthy condition free from all defects. Similarly, the case law relied upon by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. versus Dr. KoneruSatyaKishre and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 564-65 that  a defect in a vehicle may come under the category of ‘manufacturing defect’ or otherwise, a vehicle is said to be suffering from defect, it there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality , quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any law in force. It would be seen from above that whether the defect in the vehicle qualified to be called a ‘manufacturing defect’ or not, it was duty of the OPs to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to complainant in a road-worthy condition.           Both above cited judgments are applicable in this case. In the above citations Hon’ble National Commission upheld the case of the State Commission. From perusal of above cited judgments and terms and conditions, it is clear that OPs are indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in providing the services to complainant.
10. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and OPs are directed to check all the defective parts and replace the same with new one free of costs within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order, if not done the same yet. If after repair/replacement of the defective parts, the vehicle in question nor run properly, then OPs are liable to replace the engine of vehicle with new one. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- cost of litigation.
11. Compliance of above directions be made within 45 days of receipt of copy of this order.
12. Copy of order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to record room
13. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:24.03.2023

 

          (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                  (Kuljit Singh)

          Member                                           President