IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 16th day of December, 2013
Filed on 01.04.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Xavier Antony (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.2/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Kumari Chithra.K. 1. CEO., SS Hyundai, Oppo. CSI
Padmalayam, Kumarapuram Church, Mitchel Junction
Haripad Mavelikara, Alappuzha
(By Adv. B.Sivadas & Associates) (By Adv. Alex K. John
2. The Managing Director, Hyundai
Motor India Ltd., Marketing and
Sales Head Quarters 5th and 6th Floor
Corporate One One, Baani Building
Plot No.1, Commercial Centre
Jasola, New Delhi – 110 076
3. Sri. Thomas Silva, Area Parts and
Service Manager, Hyundai Motor
India Ltd., Regional Office, N.P.54
Developed Plot, Thiru-Vi-Ka
Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is the registered owner of Hyundai Santro Car bearing Reg. No.KL-4P 5040. The vehicle was given for service to the first opposite party, the authorized dealer of the 2nd opposite party on 20.9.2011. The first opposite party informed the complainant that vehicle would be returned after proper service on 22.9.2011. On that day the complainant was informed by the first opposite party that some more works is to be completed and 2 days time and least is required for the completion of the work. She was not allowed to see the vehicle. After 2 days, the complainant contacted the opposite party and it is informed that the work is not completed. After a few days on enquiry, complainant came to know that the vehicle was kept in the show room of MGF Hyundai, Kottayam. The complainant has apprehension that somebody trying to steel it and took it for taking out the genuine parts of the car. After that the vehicle was brought to the first opposite party and they issued a bill for Rs.6968/- to the complainant and it was settled by the complainant and taken the vehicle from there. The opposite parties denied to provide required repair after making repeated requests by the complainant’s son through e-mail. According to the complainant, the defects of the vehicle occurred due to the negligent act of the first opposite party. The vehicle is still in defective condition and do not run smoothly. The complainant and her family incurred Rs.30,000/- for travelling expenses since they could not get back the car in proper time. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The vehicle was given to service on 20.9.2011. Since there was more works to be completed, other than the complainant, the first opposite party informed the complainant about the delay in completion of said work. Due to the mechanical defect which could not be made out by the first opposite party, the vehicle was brought by the first opposite party in MGF Hyundai, Kottayam through the work shop in Mannar. More over the complainant’s father was given satisfaction note on 4.11.2011 to the first opposite party for the work made by the first opposite party. The first opposite party denied the statement with regard to the steeling of the vehicle and taken out the genuine parts of the car. There is no deficiency in service on the party of the first opposite party.
3. Due to the non filing of the vakalath and version, the 2nd opposite party was set exparte.
4. The version of the third opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is frivolous, misconceived and has been formulated on wrong resulting facts. There is absolutely no cause of action. The vehicle of the complainant was delivered in perfect running condition as any other new car without any technical or mechanical defects whatsoever. The car in question is out of warranty and it has not been registered for extended warranty. The liability of the third opposite party being the manufacturer of the Hyundai car is limited and extends to its warranty application alone. The complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the car, hence the pleading against the third opposite party is nothing, but a misjoinder of parties. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.
5. The points came up for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. The Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. The first opposite party was absent and the third opposite party submitted that they have no oral evidence. The counsel for the complainant and third opposite party argued the matter.
7. The complainant is the owner of the Hyundai Car bearing Reg. No.KL-4 P5040. She entrusted her car to the first opposite party for service on 20.9.2011. Ext.A1 evidenced the same. The car was returned to the complainant only on 4.11.2011. According to the complainant while entrusting the car for service with the first opposite party she was made to believe that the vehicle would be returned after proper service on 22.9.2011. As it was not delivered on 22.9.2011, the complainant and her husband contacted the first opposite party several times. Then she filed a complaint before the S.I. of Police, Mavelikara on 11.10.2011. Ext.A3 evidenced the same. After that the first opposite party issued Ext.A4, the repair order dated 12.10.2011 to the complainant. The endorsement made on the Ext.A4 is that, “the vehicle is in our custody and hereby promises that it would be delivered in a minimum time.” So it is clear from Ext.A4 that the vehicle was in their custody from 20.9.2011 onwards. But at the same time, Ext.A5 the photo copy of the repair order dated 8.10.2011 issued by the MGF Motors Ltd., Kottayam shows that the vehicle No. KL4-P5040 owned by the complainant was in their work shop for “running repair, engine – MIS – firing”. The complainant has no case that she has entrusted the vehicle to the MGF Motors Ltd., Kottayam for repairing. Ext.A6 – tax invoice issued by the first opposite party shows that they have received Rs.6962/- towards repairing charge and delivered the vehicle on 4.11.2011. On verifying the documents placed before us it is clear that the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party for servicing on 20.9.2011 and it was returned only on 4.11.2011. The first opposite party has no case that the vehicle suffered from such a serious defect that the long time of 1½ months are required to remove the defects. Also it is not the case of the opposite party that any part of the vehicle was required to be replaced and delay occurred in procuring that part. In other words, there is no justifiable explanation for the long delay caused in repairing the vehicle for which the first opposite party is liable. After the vehicle was brought by the first party in MGF Hyundai, Kottayam due to mechanical defect, it should be informed to the complainant. The complainant came to know about it only after filing the complaint before the Police Station, Mavelikara. In spite of the repeated contacts made by the complainant, the long delay committed by the first opposite party in returning the vehicle to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. According to the complainant, she and her family incurred
Rs.30,000/- for the travelling expenses since they could not get back the car in proper time. More over she suffered harassment and mental agony also. But it was not proved by the complainant. In the light of above discussions, we find that since the complainant was deprived of the use of the vehicle for the long period, she needs to be compensated for the same.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. The first opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. The order shall be complied by the first opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 16th day of December, 2013.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - B. Achuthan Pillai (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Power of Attorney
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Repair order
Ext.A3 - Copy of the complaint before the S.I. of Police, Mavelikara
Ext.A4 - Repair Order of SS Hyundai
Ext.A5 - Copy of the repair order of MGF Motors Ltd.
Ext.A6 - Cash Invoice of SS Hyundai
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy // By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
