Delhi

West Delhi

CC/08/460

AVINASH CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

HANS HYUNDAI - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 460/2008

Sh. Avinash  Chander

S/o  Late  Sh. Ram Lubhya

R/o –B-101, Him Hit  CGHS  Ltd. ,

Plot No.-8, Sector-22, Phase-I,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110077                    …….                       Complainant

 

VERSUS

1. M/s  Hans  Hundai

        (A unit of Charu Motors(P) Ltd.

        Through its Director

 

        Office at :-

        69/1, NajafgarhRoad,

         Moti Nagar New -110015

 

2. 2     M/s Hundai Motor India Limited
3.     (Through It’s Director/

        National Customer Relation Manager)

 

        Office At :-

        A-30, Mohan Co-operative

        Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

        New Delhi-110044.

 

       

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased  a New Santro Car XL (Model) bearing Registration No. DL-4C S 9004 from the Opposite Party No. 1 vide  receipt  no. PR 2007015054 under Exchange Offer of the USED CAR SCHEME  for sum  of Rs.2,39,271/- .  It is a case of complainant that sometime  before servicing of the  car   complainant observed that  original paint of the car had come out from three places mainly  Bonnet,  Right  hand side front gate of pillar near  stering side  behind pillar  and various other  places and Scratching Marks at many places.  The complainant brought  theses defects to the  notice  of servicing  adviser of the  OP No.1 but after first service  the complainant found that no action / rectification had taken place.  On 14.09.2007  after first service the complainant observed that the  Wheel Rims  started bending,  this defect was  also brought  to the notice of OP-1  on second service  but was not attended to.  Since the car was under warranty period the Wheel Rim should  have been replaced instead of being repaired.  Thereafter the complainant deposited the car to workshop of OP-I on 03.10.2007 and on 06.10.2007 which was returned to him after general check-up.  The complainant then wrote letter dated 08.10.2007 requesting the OPs to immediately replace the car.  On 03.11.2007 and 05.11.2007 OPs again wrote a letter to complainant to take car for inspection to its workshop.  The complainant deposited a car for check-up whereby OP replaced two rims instead of four rims and bonnet was also  repainted  by OP-I .  The complainant submitted that he suffered torture, mental harassment due to selling a defective  new Santro Car.  He has also prayed  for replacement of the car and compensation.

2. Both OPs filed separate reply. The gist of the reply is identical.  It is stated in the reply that no manufacturing defect has been pointed out by the complainant nor any expert report as to the  manufacturing  defect has been placed on record which could have called for replacement of the vehicle .  It is, however, not in dispute that the complainant had purchased Santro  Car from OP-I  which was manufactured by OP.  The OPs have explained in tabulate form the service record of the car in question.  The car was taken to the workshop of the OP-1 five times and lastly it was taken on 20.04.2008 with mileage of 15419.  It is pointed out that the damage   to the car was caused by external impact hence not covered under manufacturer’s warranty. It is also stated admitted by the OPs that both left side wheel rims being under warranty so were immediately replaced.  Similarly exterior body paint could be attributed to the external causes.  It has also been stated that terms and conditions of the warranty only talk. about replacement of the defective part and not the replacement of the vehicle.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.    

3.     Complainant has filed replication denying contents of written statement and re-affirming the contents of complaint.  He has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint.  He relied upon the EX.  CW 1/A  to CW 1/O.  On the other hand Sh. Ashok Rajan Gupta, Service Manager of OP-1 has filed Affidavit  on behalf of OP-1. Mr. Manish Kumar, Assistant Manager( Legal & Secretarial)for OP-2 filed affidavit on behalf of OP-2.

4.     We have heard  Counsel for parties  and perused the record.

5. The counsel for complainant vehemently stressed that the vehicle was taken to the workshop  of the OP-1 on a number of occasions which caused undue hardships, loss of time and harassment.  It has been further contended that since OP-1 changed the rims and attended to other defects of the vehicle would clearly show that it is a case of deficiency on part of  the OP .  The counsel for complainant Mr. Vinay Kumar submitted that though complainant sought replacement of the vehicle but now he would confine his argument for compensation only.
6.  Counsel for the OP on the other hand argued that nowhere in the complaint has complainant pointed out any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The so called defects in the vehicle were duly attended to by OPs.  Not only this even the defective parts of the vehicle were readily replaced  making vehicle fit for road.  Counsel for OP in support of his submissions referred to case titled “ Hyundi Motor Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. Surbhi Gupta Revision Petition No. 2854 of 2014 , 2014 SCC on line NCDRC 487,(2000)10 Supreme Court Cases 654 titled Hindustan Motors  Ltd. And Another Vs N. Siva Kumar and Another which held as under:-

“Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 –Ssc.23,22(b) & 14(b) and (d), 2(c)(ii)-Commission’s  order becoming  impossible to comply with –National Commission ordering replacement of respondent’s defective Ambassador NOVA model car-  Appellants stopping manufacture of the said model-  Under  such circumstances Supreme Court finding no other way except  to direct the appellants to comply with the State Commission’s order for refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and costs directed to be paid therein- Dealer in instant  case held not to be liable for the  manufacturing  defects in the vehicle.”  

 

7. We have given our careful thought to the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties.  It is true that whenever a new vehicle is purchased by a consumer he alongwith his family is on cloud nine  and is filled with ecstatic  excitement  to have  joy and comfort of  the new vehicle . The dreams of complainant get shattered when the  new vehicle come to a stand still and turns out  to be a nightmare when the vehicle is intermittently taken  to the workshop  for getting the defects removed.  This is exactly what has happened in the instant case. Though the complainant could not succeed in pointing out any manufacturing defect in the vehicle nevertheless  he was compelled to take the vehicle time and again to the workshop of OP for the defects.  He has also suffered the travails to trial for over one decade.
8. Keeping in view of the discussion and circumstance stated above we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if we award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards harassment, mental torture and litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this___15th___ day of __March_____ 2019.

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                (PUNEET LAMBA)                  

PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER