BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 568 of 2019
Date of Institution: 24.09.2019
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022
Gyan Singh son of Shri Gurmeet Singh, C/o M/s Gurmeet Tractors, Sirsa Road, Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Drishti Hyundai, Authorized Dealer of Hyundai Motors, 1205, Tikri Border, Delhi Road, Bahadurgarh- 124507 through its Manager/ Authorized signatory.
2. Raja Motors Private Limited, (Authorized Dealer of Hyundai Motors) Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Manager/ Incharge/ Authorized person.
3. Hyundai India Private Limited, Head Office, Hyundai NP54, Developed Plot Thiru-vika, Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600032.
4. Lottee Building 44th Floor No. 169600096 Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kandancavdi, Chennai Tamilnadu- 600096.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…….PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sunny Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment as under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had purchased a Car make Santro Spark AMT white colour Model 2018 vide sale invoice dated 13.12.2018 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,46,900/- and the said car is manufactured by op no.3. Its two years guarantee was given. The complainant purchased the said car after availing loan facility from ICICI Bank Limited and car was hypothecated with the said bank. It is further averred that in the month of March, 2019, complainant detected some problem in the gear box, clutch plates of the car and on this he approached to op no.1 telephonically and complained about the defects in the car upon which op no.1 referred him to nearby agency i.e. op no.2 as per policy of the company. That during the service/ repair work of the car at Sirsa op no.2 due to negligence on the part of the Foreman/ Engineer there occurred some defects in the car due to which defect also occurred in the engine of the car and car was rendered useless as though the car started but the same could not be plied. The complainant complained about the said defect to op no.2 and op no.2 assured him for removal of the defect and asked him to leave the car at their agency and as such complainant left the car there but due to the major defect in the engine of the car, same could not be repaired and same is lying at the agency of op no.3 (it should be op no.2). It is further averred that since the day of engine starting problem in the car, the complainant visited to the premises of ops and op no.2 also kept confined the car with an assurance to get the same repaired from the company or in case of non repair, the car would be replaced but due to the major defect in the car because of manufacturing defect, the said car rendered useless and non road worthy. The complainant time and again approached them for getting his grievance redressed but the ops did not pay any heed to the genuine claim of complainant rather put off the complainant with one pretext or the other. It is further averred that thereafter complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops but ops refused to do anything. That despite spending such a huge amount of Rs.5,46,900/- the complainant could not get benefit of the same and there is a grave deficiency of service on the part of ops. The ops have supplied a defective car to the complainant with an oblique motive. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal, no consumer dispute etc. On merits, it is submitted that on 9.3.2019, the complainant had brought his car at the workshop of op no.2 for its service at 4117 kms. running of the car, which was accordingly conducted and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant with his full satisfaction. Nothing was charged from the complainant for this service. Thereafter, on 18.5.2019 the complainant again brought his said vehicle for service to the workshop of op no.2 at 10058 kms. running of the vehicle and filters etc. of the vehicle were changed and it was a free service. However, the complainant was charged only for mobil oil and filters. Thereafter, on 13.6.2019 the complainant again brought his said vehicle for service to the workshop of op no.2 at 12485 kms. running of the vehicle and nothing was charged from the complainant. Then on 17.7.2019, the complainant again brought vehicle for service to op no.2 at 12829 kms. and some parts of the vehicle were changed within warranty and it was a free serve. It is further averred that complainant was given just and prompt service by the answering ops and nothing was charged from him on the above four occasions, so the question of making of any allurement etc. simply does not arise. The op no.2 conducted the free service on the vehicle of complainant on four occasions and the vehicle was delivered to him at his full satisfaction. Even few parts of the vehicle were changed, but nothing was charged by op no.2 from the complainant. The complainant has leveled totally false and baseless allegations against the op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipts Ex.C2, Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5, Ex.C6, invoice summary dated 9.3.2019 Ex.C7, invoice summary dated 18.5.2019 Ex.C8, job card dated 26.6.2019 Ex.C9, invoice summary dated 13.6.2019 Ex.C10, retail invoice dated 13.12.2018 Ex.C11, delivery challan Ex.C12, copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C13, copy of registration certificate Ex.C14, copy of temporary registration certificate Ex.C15, copy of insurance Ex.C16.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Accountant, Raja Motors Ex.RW1/A and copies of invoice summary of service Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for complainant contended that ops at the time of sale of Car in question had given complete warranty of two years against any kind of defect and due to negligence on the part of Foreman/ Engineer of op no.2 there occurred some defects in the car on account of which defect occurred in the engine of the Car and same rendered as useless as the Car though got started but the same could not be plied. The ops kept the car with the assurance to repair and it case it is not possible to repair, then to replace the car but the ops have failed to redress the grievance of complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has also contended that in the job sheet dated 26.6.2019 Ex.C9 it is mentioned that clutch problem, vehicle start but do not drive and car has not been made defect free and still car is with op no.2 and invoice dated 17.7.2019 has been wrongly prepared by ops showing that service of car has been done. Despite legal notice, ops have failed to remove defect in the car and have also failed to replace the car and prayed for refund of the price alongwith interest @18% per annum and also prayed for an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,00/- as litigation expenses.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops contended that present complaint is not maintainable as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and same was repaired/ serviced as and when same was brought to the agency and even parts were also changed without any costs as is evident from document placed on file by complainant as Ex.C7. As per documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, the free service of the car in question was done at 4117 Kms, 10057 kms, 12485 kms, 13829 kms without charging anything from complainant and now vehicle is not with op no.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly, the car in question was purchased by complainant from op no.1 on 13.12.2018 as is evident from invoice Ex.C11 issued by op no.1 and same is manufactured by op no.3 and two years complete warranty of the car in question was given to the complainant. The complainant alleges defect in the gear box, clutch plates of the car and also in the engine of the car due to negligence of engineer of op no.2 while doing repair of the car in question. From the invoices of service produced on record by complainant as well as produced on record by ops as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, it is evident that complainant was alleging continuous problems in the clutch and gear of the car in question in the warranty period but despite services/ repairs of the car in question, the problems remained persistent and could not be removed/ repaired despite repeated visits of the complainant to the authorized agency of ops. In the Job sheet dated 26.6.2019 Ex.C9 issued by op no.2 it is clearly mentioned that complainant reported clutch problem and though vehicle starts but cannot be driven and as such vehicle is with op no.2. Since complainant is alleging above said defects in the Car in question within warranty period and has alleged that car in question is not being plied as defect has occurred in the engine of the Car in question and same is lying with op no.2, therefore, ops are liable to remove the defect from the car and to make it defect free and road worthy without any charges from the complainant.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to hand over the car in question to the complainant after its repair and while making it defect free even after replacing any defective parts/ engine of the car without any costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case ops fail to remove the defect in the car within above said stipulated period, then ops no.1, 3 and 4 are severally and jointly directed to refund the amount of the car in question i.e. Rs.5,46,900/- to the complainant within further period of 30 days failing which complainant will be entitled to interest on the price of the Car i.e. Rs.5,46,900/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization of the amount. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 09.08.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
