Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/779

LAXMI RATHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEP HYUNDAI - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 1.11.2012

Complaint Case. No.779/12                                                    Date of order: 21.09.2017

 

IN  MATTER OF

Laxmi Rathore W/o B.S. Rathore, E-200,Krishna Vihar, Delhi 110041.                                                                                                                                                                     Complainant

VERSUS

 

M/s Deep Hyundai A unit of Deep India Enterprise Ltd Show Room-C-5 Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-110083

                                                                                                                           Opposite party-1

Work Shop, Deep Hyundai, K-1 Udyog Nagar Industrial Area, Peera Garhi Crossing, Rohtak Road, Delhi-41

                                                                                                                         Opposite party-2

 

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Smt Laxmi Rathore,  named above herein the complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against M/s Deep Hyundai and another hereinafter in short referred as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite parties to  pay compensation  of Rs. Five lacs  on account of in-convenience, mental  torture and cost of litigation.

            The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the complaint as stated are that the complainant vide invoice dated 31.12.2010 purchased I 10 Magna,1.1 BS IV Champagne Gold car bearing registration No. DL 4C AP 7068 from the  opposite party no. 1 for Rs.3,83,767/-. The car was delivered to the complainant on 4.2.2011. The complainant paid Rs.20,412/- as registration fee, parking  charges and road tax.  The opposite party no. 1 also provided extended warranty of  the car  for three years on receipt of Rs.2500/-.  On 18.8.2012 the car was taken to the opposite party no. 2 for repair and service.  The complainant paid  Rs.3710/- for service and repair charges vide Invoice No. B301212575 dated 18.8.12.  The complainant later  on came to know that neither  service nor repair was done properly. The complainant made several  telephonic calls to the opposite party no. 1 and after great follow up the opposite party no. 1 sent a mechanic. But he was unable to repair the car.   On 22.8.12 the complainant had to get the car repaired from another workshop on payment of Rs.500/-.  The car automatically does not switch on either to petrol or CNG.  The car had to be again taken to opposite party no.1 and remained with them for few days.  The complainant wrote a letter to the opposite parties to compensate her for deficiency in service and inconvenience suffered by her. But to no effect.  Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties  to pay compensation  of Rs. Five lacs  on account of in-convenience, mental  torture and cost of litigation to the complainant.

            After notice, the opposite  parties appeared and filed reply contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections of maintainability of the complaint, concealment and suppression of true and material facts and there is no evidence of any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties.

            On  merits the opposite parties asserted that the car was brought by the complainant at the workshop of the opposite parties for repair and service.  The opposite parties repaired and provided complete service to the complainant on receipt of genuine charges. The opposite parties did not charge excess amount.  When the opposite parties received  telephonic call from the complainant of starting problem technician of the opposite parties visited the complainant on 25.8.12 and shared with her that the starting problem was on account of some defect in the local CNG fitment which can be dealt by a CNG fitment Centre.  The extended warranty was subject to the extended warranty terms and conditions  that  “ Vehicle fitted with non-genuine LPG/CNG Kits are not applicable for Extended Warranty.  No dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to extend or enlarge this warranty and no dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to make any oral warranty on HML’s behalf”.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the extended warranty.  All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties controverting  stand of the opposite parties reiterating her stand and once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties.

            When Smt. Laxmi Rathore complainant was asked to lead evidence, she tendered in her evidence her affidavit narrating  facts of the complaint.  She also relied upon Annexure 1 invoice No. H201004525 ,Annexure 2, Annexure 3 delivery receipt , Annexure 4 extended warranty , Annexure 5 cash invoice No. B 201212575 dated 18.8.12, Annexure 6  Bill No. 581 dated 22.8.12 and Annexure 7  letter dated 29.8.12. 

            When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence  affidavit of Sh. Ajit Kumar A.R. narrating  facts of their reply. They have also relied upon terms and conditions of Hundyai extended warranty.

            We have heard  ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the record carefully and thoroughly.

            Before proceeding further it is proper to re-write condition iv of Hyundai extended warranty terms and conditions. Which reads as under;

“ Vehicle fitted with non-genuine LPG/C NG Kits are not applicable for Extended Warranty.  No dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to extend or enlarge this warranty and no dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to make any oral warranty on HML’s behalf”.

            From bare reading of condition IV of terms and conditions of Hyundai extended warranty it is crystal clear that the vehicle fitted with non genuine LPG/CNG kits are not covered under the extended warranty.  The complainant has got CNG kit fitted from unauthorized centre.  Therefore, the car is not within warranty and the extended warranty has lapsed.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the benefits of the extended warranty.

             Case of the complainant  further is that on 18.8.2012 he delivered the car to the opposite party no. 2 for repair and service and paid Rs.3710/-. But repair and service was not satisfactory.  The complainant had to spent Rs.500/- on 22.8.12 for smooth running of the car.  Whereas  case of the opposite parties is that they gave complete service to the satisfaction of the complainant and repaired the car to her satisfaction.  There is no material on record to show that the opposite parties charged excess amount on account of service and repair of the car from the complainant.  The case of the opposite parties is that they took genuine charges from the complainant. Hence, in the absence of any material on record it cannot be held that  the opposite party no. 2 charged excessive amount and there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            Therefore, there is no merit  in the complaint, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 21.09.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record        

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)                              MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT