Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/458/2015

Hyundai Motors India Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harish Bulani s/o Thanvardas Bulani Advocaate - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Kumar Pareek

19 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 458/2015

 

Hyundai Motor India Ltd., regd.office Plot no. H-1 SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudar Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu

Vs.

Harish Bulani r/o Chanakyapuri Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 19.01.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Deepak Pareek counsel for the appellant

Mr.S.P.Gandhi counsel for respondent no.1

Mr.Prashant Mantri counsel for respondent no. 3 & 4

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Ajmer dated 5.2.2015 whereby the liability of Rs. 54,668/- has been fastened on the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the vehicle was damaged due to accident hence, warranty cannot be claimed by the complainant and the appellants are not deficient in service.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that turbo charger was replaced on 13.7.2011 and admittedly accident has taken place on 27.5.2011. Hence, damage to the turbo charger cannot be attributed to the accident and it covers under warranty and claim has rightly been passed against the appellant.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

This is not in dispute that the consumer respondent's car was get accidented on 27.5.2011. It was purchased on 14.5.2011. It was submitted for service and at that time there is no allegation of any defect in turbo charger. Again on 5.6.2011

 

3

 

free service was given by the appellant. On that day also there is no mention in the credit invoice that turbo charger is defective and as per credit invoice of dated 13.7.2011 turbo charger was changed and amount taxable is mentioned as Rs.54,668/-. Hence, in view of the above record it cannot be said that turbo charger was get defective due to accident as in two services after the accident nothing has been mention about the fact that the turbo charger is defective. Apart from this, job card dated 26.5.2011 one day prior to the accident, it has been mentioned that there was a complaint of oil leakage and it was handed over to the appellants. Hence, this job card clearly speaks that prior to the accident the turbo charger was defective.

 

In view of the above the appellants are not entitled for the exclusion clause as damage is not the result of any accident and the Forum below has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant and the appeal stands rejected.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm