Delhi

North East

CC/376/2013

Z.A. ANSARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HANS HYUNDAI CHARU MOTORS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No 376/2013

 

In the matter of:

 

	Z.A. Ansari R/o A-158, G-1, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-95
		Complainant
	Versus
1.	Hans Hyundai Charu Motors Pvt Ltd. Plot No 33-35, Mall Road, Guru Teg Bahadur Near Haqeekat Nagar Metro Station Kingsway Camp New Delhi-110009
2.	Hyundai India Motor Ltd A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
		Opposite Party
Order

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	27.12.2013
	DATE OF DECISION      :	30.01.2017

N.K. Sharma, President:-

 

1. As per complaint, complainant purchased a Santro GL+ Car of OP2 make from OP1 bearing No. DL-10 C-D 7955. This car was having a company fitted CNG Kit. After taking the car from showroom complainant felt low pickup in the car. Oral complaint whereof was made to OP1 who asked to get the car checked at their Badli Service Centre, where two mechanics checked the car and one CNG expert present there did something through computer and told that he has done tuning. On query of so low pickup in the car of 5 passengers capacity OP1 pleaded that since it is a new car and the problem shall be cured after using for some time. Trusting complainant took the car but even after using it for 2-3 months the problem of pick up persisted. Written complaint whereof was made by complainant to Kingsway Camp Showroom of company. After few days complainant got a call asking to send the car at their Moti Nagar Work Shop where complainant was told to leave the car for three days. Accordingly, complainant left the car there. When he went to collect the car he was told that a new software has been installed and there will be no problem in future. But after a week, again there was some problem about which complaint lodged in writing and after indulgence of its Senior Manager the car was again sent at their Moti Nagar Work Shop, where complainant was told that they want to send the car to its associate company –CEV Engineering India, Okhla so that their responsibilities may be fixed. The car was sent there, where complainant was told that whatever the problem in the car it has been cured by it and complainant shall have no problem in future. But again after 2-3 months the same problem arose. Now, the show room and workshop of OPs are shifting their responsibilities on one another. Complainant has prayed for the directions to company to refund the cost of the car and penalty on the company.
2. OP1 by filing its reply has challenged the maintainability of complaint on the ground of complaint being not supported with any mechanical inspection report of the car and for non-joinder of necessary party as CEV Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.  On merits OP1 denied any deficiency in service on its part stating that whenever the complaint was made OP1 given proper service to the complainant even the car was sent to CEV who found it  fit with no low pickup. Even otherwise as OP1 is neither manufacturer or the warranty provider nor CNG fitment company it is none of its liability.
3. OP2 by filing its reply has denied any manufacturing defect or default in service on it’s part. To prove the same is the responsibility of complainant as per settled law of National Commission and Supreme Court of India, which the complainant has failed to prove. It is admitted case of complainant that the car is performing well on petrol and only CNG is giving low pickup. Every complaint was duly attended by OP1 by providing best services as per warranty conditions of OP2.
4. With respect to problem in the CNG kit, OP2 denied any liability since it is not the manufacturer / warranty provider but it only approved fitment of CNG conversion kit manufactured and distributed by its manufacturer the CEV Engineering Pvt. Ltd. It is CEV Engineering Pvt. Ltd. only who was provided warranty on the CNG and who itself is responsible in case of any defect in the CNG system. Even otherwise, whatever the defects those can be rectified by minor adjustments and replacement of the entire car is not required.
5. In support of its contention, that there is no defect, OP2 states that the car had already covered 9862 km. in less than a year which is not possible in case of defect therein. Moreover, as OP2 deals with OP1 on Principal to Principal basis it is not responsible for the defect of OP1, if any. On the request of parties OP was asked to recheck the car in question with reference to pick up on CNG. OP after checking at its unit at Kirti Nagar filed a report showing the performance of the car on CNG as satisfactory but complainant filed objection against it stating that on test drive the car was not taking pick up on third gear, objection whereof was not paid heed and OP has falsely submitted satisfactory report. Even after so many efforts the car could not be checked by any independent agency so that impartial report could be obtained.
6. All the parties filed their respective affidavit of evidence.
7. Heard & perused the records.
8. Going through all the records, the only dispute between the parties is with respect to low pickup on CNG. Since the very beginning complainant has complained about low pick up for which OP1 not only checked the vehicle in question itself but also sent the same to its other service centres i.e. Badli and Kingsway Camp, so many times, and lastly the car was also sent to CEV Engineering Pvt. Ltd. claimed to be CNG fitment company and manufacturer / warranty provider of the CNG kit and the system. The CEV Engineering Pvt Ltd has kept the car for rectification but after some time same problem. Complainant felt same problem again and again. As per complainant, OP1 done its tuning and also changed the software which facts are not denied by OP. At one place, complainant also states that while checking, engineer of OP1 says that the pickup is okay while there was no pick up in 3^rd gear which fact is also not specifically denied by the OPs.
9. On the basis of above findings it is established that there is problem in the pickup of the car on CNG fuel while on petrol it is running smoothly. There is no manufacturing defect in the car itself but the defect in the CNG system only. Non-joinder plea of OPs is not maintainable. As advertisement in Nav Bharat Times and certain other materials, placed on record, clearly establish that OP2 has offered the Santro Car as available in CNG also. In which case complainant has no concern whatsoever from whom the company is getting the CNG fitted.  Besides, as per the disclaimer as well as the warranty material placed on record by OPs It is specifically provided that “the 24 months new vehicles warranty given, by HMIL on the performance of vehicle, is not only subject to HIML’s warranty terms and condition but also terms and conditions of CEV on its CNG kit”. Clause 3 CEV’s warranty obligation placed on record, specifically provides “HMIL authorized dealer shall either repair or replace, any genuine part that is acknowledged by HMIL dealer and/or CEV to be defective in material or workmanship within the warranty period stipulated above at no cost to the owner of the CEV CNG equipped vehicles for parts or labour. Such defective part(s) which have been replaced will become the property of CEV”. Thus, plea of OP2 that it does not provide any warranty with respect to CNG is false. It is very much responsible for defect as CEV itself. Thus no question of non-joiner arises. OP’s plea of CEV reporting that there is no problem in the CNG is not supported by any report of CEV, thus not maintainable.
10. OPs have referred certain Judgements in support of their contentions that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and in case of manufacturing defect, OP is liable only to rectify / replace the particular part and not to replace the entire car. All these judgements are not applicable in the present case as no manufacturing defect is pleaded by complainant. With respect to liability of OP1, OP2 pleads that OP1, the dealer, is working with it on principle to principle basis only, hence, whatever the responsibility it shall be of the dealer i.e. OP1 and the CNG fitment company, the CEV Engineering Pvt. Ltd and not of OP2. We don’t find a force in this argument of OP2.
11. On the basis of above findings we are of the view that OPs have sold car in question to the complainant with defective CNG system which OPs could not rectify even after a number of attempts/ opportunities. Due to which complainant had to face harassment, mental as well as physical, beside monetary loss. Thus, there being manufacturing defect, in the CNG system installed, in the car OPs are liable to replace the CNG system with new and defect free one, beside compensation.
12. Therefore, holding liable for the same we direct both the OPs to ;

1. Replace the entire CNG system in the car in question, with new one, in perfect condition to the satisfaction of the complainant; and
2. Pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation; and
3. Pay Rs. 5,500/- as litigation cost;

jointly and severally.

13. This order shall be complied within by both the OPs jointly and severally, within 30 days from the received copy of this order.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
15. File be consigned to record room.
16. Announced on: - 30-01-2017

 

(N.K.Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member