Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/350

Amit Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Grover Automobiles Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ritesh Mohindra

08 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:350 dated14.12.2020.                                                Date of decision: 08.02.2024.

 

Amit Gupta S/o. Mohinder Kumar Gupta. H. No.1031, Near Baba Balak Nath Mandir, Dayal Nagar, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana-141001.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Grover Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Opp. Dhandari Railway Station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Services), Grover Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Opp. Dhandari Railway Station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.
3. Hyundai Motors India Limited, having its registered office at Second Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Jasola, New Delhi through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Nipun Gupta, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Manish Midha, Advocate.

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an insurance advisory and investment consultant by profession. The complainant purchased one car Venue 1.0 Turbo GDI MT SX from OP1 who is authorized dealer of OP3 manufacturer of Hyundai Cars in India, vide invoice No.19/20/C-1460 dated 16.01.2020 bearing registration No.PB-91-H-9923. On 29.05.2020, the said car met with an accident and a DDR No.11 dated 29.05.2020 was got registered at Police Post Rouni. The matter was reported to insurance company as well as OP1 and OP2, who asked the complainant to get the car to their service station. The complainant stated that he availed services of Guru Nanak Crane Service and left the vehicle with OP1 and OP2 on their assurance. They also intimated the complainant regarding approval of his claim from the insurance company. However, after about 4 months OP1 and OP2 failed to deliver the car to the complainant despite his requests and reminders as he was facing difficulty in moving as the vehicle was with OP1 and OP2 for repairs. OP1 and OP2 called and intimated the complainant that as there was no spare parts with them and delivery of car is possible after receiving spare parts from OP3. On 07.09.2020, OP2 called the complainant and asked him that the vehicle has been repaired but on visiting the workshop of OPs the complainant shocked to see the vehicle as there were stains on the vehicle, the paint work had lots of patches and the vehicle was not in a good condition. It looks like that the OPs have put same old parts in the vehicle rather they have charged amount for new parts from the insurance company. No explanation was tendered by the OPs regarding this and they told that the work will be completed within 2 days and then they will return the car to him. According to the complainant, the OPs are guilty of misconduct and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and monetary losses as he could not use the vehicle at a time when the public transport was closed by the State Government due to outbreak of Covid-19. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 09.09.2020 upon the OPs. Finally on 26.09.2020, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and the complainant took possession of the vehicle from the OPs under protest. In the end, the complainant   prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.                Upon notice,  OP1 and OP2 appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of cause of action; misuse of process of law, concealment of material facts; mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. OP1 and OP2 stated that the complainant approached them and stated that his car had met with an accident on 29.05.2020 and vehicle was sent for repairs with them. After the receipt of the vehicle an estimate for the loss was made and the OPs received mail from Japneet Singh surveyor on 06.06.2020 vide which OP1 and OP2 were instructed to start the repair of the vehicle in question. OP1 and OP2 further stated that at the time when the vehicle had met with an accident and when the same was sent for repairs, Covid-19 was prevailed in the entire India and other parts of the World and the normal functioning and working was not possible as the entire World was closed and as such due to the said atmosphere, the agencies were also not working. Even though they to the best of their level tried to repair the vehicle and even wrote E-mail dated 05.08.2020 to the head office of Hyundai Motors to supply the spare parts so that the vehicle may be repaired but the supplier of the spare parts was also helpless to supply the spare parts to the agencies due to spread of the Covid-19 in the entire world. OP1 and OP2 further stated that even then to their level best they repaired the vehicle on time and when they have received mail from the insurance company on 01.09.2020 for  payment of the repair of the vehicle, they immediately informed the complainant to receive his vehicle but he did not approach them. According to OP1 and OP2, the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant in spite of the fact that the complete staff was not available with them due to spread of Covid-19. They have never committed any delay in repairing the vehicle even due to the situation prevailing at that time. The complainant never approached them on 07.09.2020 to receive the vehicle and the complainant has

 

approached them 26.09.2020 and on that they OP1 and OP2 had requested the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2950/- as of depreciation charges and file charges and then the complainant became annoyed and started abusing the staff of OP no.1 & 2 and refused to make the payment and even then they had fully cooperated the complainant and requested him to receive the vehicle even without making the payment of Rs. 2950/- but the complainant threatened them threatened them to institute complaint against them and clear told that he is making the payment under protest and he will see them in the court. According to OP1 and OP2, the complaint filed against them is the sheer misuse of the process of law.

                   On merits, OP1 and OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections as well as factual submission. OP1 and OP2 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                OP3 filed separate written statement and took preliminary objections by assailing the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of cause of action; concealment of material facts etc. OP3 (HMIL i.e. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd) stated that there is no averment against it and whole complaint revolves around OP1 and OP2. Moreover, liability of OP3 being manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited to warranty obligations only. OP3 operates with all its dealers including OP1 and OP2 on ‘principal-to-principal basis and not m on ‘principal-to-agent’ According to OP3, the complainant reported his car for accidental repairs, the same was not covered under the HMIL warranty policy. The aspect of accidental repairs is interse OP1 and OP2, complainant and insurance company only. Further as per HMIL warranty policy, it has been clearly stated that warranty shall not cover any damage or failure resulting from misuse, abuse, accident, theft, flooding or fire. The concern of the complainant regarding accidental repairs were addressed by OP1 and OP2 and car was handed over to the complainant in road worthy conditions by them. The delay in repair to the vehicle was due to spread of COVID-19 and a nationwide lockdown was imposed so there were several restrictions imposed by the governments which affected the normal work scenario and supply chain itself. As such, OP3 cannot be held liable as alleged.

                   On merits, OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections as well as factual submission. OP3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Annexure. C1 is the copy of purchase invoice of vehicle, Annexure. C2 is the copy of DDR No.11 dated 29.05.2020, Annexure. C3 is the copy of receipt of crane station, Annexure. C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 09.09.2020, Annexure. C5 and Annexure. C6 are the postal receipts, Annexure. C7 is the copy of feedback form of Grover Hyundai, Annexure. C8 are the photographs and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, General Manager of Grover Automobiles, Opp. Dhandari Railway Station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of repair order, Ex. R2 and Ex. R3 are the copies of gate pass registers, Ex. R4 is the copy of Email dated 05.08.2020 and closed the evidence.

                   The counsel for OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. OP3 of Sh. Varun Panta, Assistant Manager of OP3 along with documents Ex. OP3/1 is the copy of Hyundai new vehicle warranty, Ex. OP3/2 is the copy of dealership agreement and closed the evidence.     

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by OP3.  

7.                A car bearing registration No.PB-91-H-8923 pertaining to the complainant met an accident on 29.05.2020 and a DDR No.11 dated 29.05.2020 Ex. C2 was registered at Police Post Rouni. The accidental vehicle was removed to workshop of OP1 and OP2 for its repair. The vehicle was finally delivered to the complainant after its repair on 07.09.2020. The complainant has raised a grievance by way of filing the present complaint that taking of four months in repairing the vehicle amounts to deficiency in service which according to the complainant entitles him for compensation. On the other hand, the OPs tried to justify the time taken for repair and attributed the time consumed to the surveyor of the insurance company and delay in supply of spare parts due to spread of COVID-19 pandemic.

8.                This Commission can take note of the fact that the period during which  the vehicle remained under repair was an extraordinary condition due to spread of COVID-19 Pandemic. All the establishments including that of the OPs and other connected offices were working with depleted strength and efficiency due to circumstances which were beyond their control. Even otherwise at the time of accepting the delivery of the car for the repairs, OP1 and OP2 did not fix or promised  any particular deadline which was to be strictly adhered to nor such fact has been pleaded in the complaint or the affidavit by the complainant. Further a specific stand has been taken by OP1 and OP2 that the vehicle was ready for delivery after its repair as on 01.09.2020 but it is the complainant who lastly came to receive the repaired vehicle on 26.09.2020 and also disputed the payment of bill of Rs.2950/-. These averments remained unrebutted. Even assuming the story of the complainant to be gospel truth with regard to consumption of four months in repair, this Commission is of the view that it was within reasonable time during those post Covid-19 situations. So there is no deficiency or adoption of trade practice on the part of the OPs.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.               

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)                      Member                                                President   

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.02.2024.

Gobind Ram.