STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                            U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Hyundai Motor India Ltd., 2nd, 5th and 6th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025, through its authorized representative                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1.      Harpal Singh son of Sh.Jagraj Singh, resident of H.No.1281/2, Sector 33-C,     Chandigarh.  

2.       Joshi Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., C-117, Industrial Focal Point, Phase VII, Mohali, SAS Nagar, through its Manager.

3.         Ultimate Automobiles Private Limited, Plot No.154-155, Industrial Area,            Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                                                                                             ...Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986  against   order dated 01.12.2017 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.536/2017

Argued by:    Ms.Kulwant Kaur Kahlon,  Advocate for the appellant.  

                       Mr.Harpal Singh, respondent No.1 in person

                       Mr.Devinder Kumar,Advocate for respondent No.2

Ultimate Automobiles Private Limited, Plot No.154-155, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative

                                                                                                …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1.      Harpal Singh son of Sh.Jagraj Singh, resident of H.No.1281/2, Sector 33-C,     Chandigarh.  

2.       Joshi Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., C-117, Industrial Focal Point, Phase VII, Mohali, SAS Nagar, through its Manager.

3.        Hyundai Motor India Ltd., 2nd, 5th and 6th Floor, Corporate One (Baani              Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025,        through  its Manager                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …..Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986  against   order dated 01.12.2017 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.536/2017

Argued by:    Mr. Aftab Singh Khara,  Advocate for the appellant. 

                       Mr.Harpal Singh, respondent No.1 in person

                       Mr.Devinder Kumar,Advocate for respondent No.2

 BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                                                                          MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       This  order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals bearing Nos.27 of 2018  titled as Hyundai Motor India  Limited Vs Harpal Singh & others filed by OP No.3 and 23 of 2018 titled as Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Harpal Singh & Others   filed by OP No.1 against common judgment dated 1.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh (for short ‘the Forum’ only) allowing consumer complaint bearing No.536 of 2017. To dictate order, facts are taken from appeal No.27 of 2018.

 2.              Harpal Singh- complainant/respondent No.1 purchased Hyundai Creta SUV manufactured by the appellant/OP No.3. The said vehicle was purchased through respondent No.3/OP No.1. Respondent No.2 is an authorized service Centre  of the appellant, where the complainant took his car from time to time.     Purchase of vehicle, referred to above, by the complainant/respondent No.1, manufactured by the appellant/OP No.3 on 21.4.2017 is not in dispute.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.12,58,641/- against invoice annexure C-1 on the above said date.  The complainant got the vehicle insured by spending an amount of Rs.32,438/-, besides incurring expenses of Rs.68,959/- on its registration. It was case of the complainant that his car was under warranty.  In the first week of May, 2017, when driving the said car, the complainant noticed unusual sound coming from the vehicle at the time of applying brakes. Feeling apprehensive that the condition of the vehicle may not further deteriorate, he approached respondent No.3/OP No.1 on 4.5.2017  for repair, but he was put off by stating that he should visit the workshop after a week as the lift installed in the workshop was out of order.  The complainant then approached respondent No.2/OP No.2 for repair of his car, on inspection, it was noticed that brake drums of the vehicle needed replacement.  To identify the defect, Respondent No.2/OP NO.2 fixed a pair of drums of a used car, however, failed to identify the defect. The said complaint was lodged many a times. However, the defect was not removed. The car was also checked by the engineers of OP No.2. They informed that unusual sound has been audio recorded  and the same would be sent to the manufacturing unit of the appellant at Chennai. To await the report, he was asked to visit the workshop after two weeks. Complainant again visited OP No.2 on 15.6.2017. A team of engineers of OP No.3/appellant changed brake drums again.  Even then they failed to identify the defect.  He was asked to report for inspection on 16.6.2017. On the said date, brake drums and leather pads of brakes of the vehicle were again changed, however, failed to rectify the defect indicated above.  It was case of the complainant that in the meantime, when driving his car on a rainy day, he noticed leakage of water from the left front door. He approached OP No.1/respondent No.3 on 20.6.2017. It was intimated by OP No.1 that required machinery to effect repair was not available.

 3.                  Fed up with the behavior of OPs No.1&2, he took his vehicle to Raja Hyundai Motors, an authorized service station of the Company at Bathinda.  It was intimated that  some major defects exist  in the car  which cannot be repaired.  He was asked to approach the appellant/OP NO.3. The complainant again approached OPs No.1 & OP No.2 on 28.6.2017 and 29.6.2017 respectively, however, they failed to detect the actual fault in the car. It was further said that during the above period, wipers and right sunwiser of the vehicle also stopped functioning.  Defect was brought to the notice of  the OPs. However, it was not repaired. Stating that instead of enjoying his new vehicle, a headache was purchased by the complainant and alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle and  deficiency in providing service, he filed a consumer complaint seeking refund of amount paid. Further compensation for mental and physical harassment and amount towards litigation expenses was also sought.   

4.                   Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs. OP No.1/respondent No.3 in its reply  stated that in its workshop issue regarding abnormal sound/noise in the brake system was never raised by the complainant till 8.5.2017, on which date switch assembly back of lamp was rectified.  Issue regarding noise was raised before OP No.2 where vehicle was checked and necessary repairs were effected.  It was stated that  complaint is not maintainable against OP No.1 for any manufacturing defect. The said OP cannot be held liable.  It was admitted that the car sold was under warranty period.

5.                 OP No.2/respondent No.2 admitted entertaining the car for repairs many times.  It was also stated that despite best efforts, reason for unusual sound in the brake system, could not be identified. It was further stated that as and when the complainant approached OP No.2, he was entertained and efforts were made to satisfy his grievance.

6.                  OP No.3/appellant also filed separate written statement.  It was stated that its relationship with OP NO.1 is on principal to principal basis. After selling car to a dealer, liability of the appellant/OP No.3 is limited to the warranty granted.  It is admitted that the car reported for repairs to OP NO.2 many times. At one time, one component to be replaced was not available and it intimated to the complainant that as and when the said part becomes available, he will be informed.  Alleging that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and further there was no deficiency in providing service, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                During pendency of the complaint, on 22.8.2017, it was noticed by the Forum that during the intervening period, OPs made another attempt to cure the defect, however, failed. At the time of repair, even fuel tank of the vehicle was replaced by the OPs. In the meantime, it was brought to the notice of the Forum by the complainant that he was harassed and the OPs misbehaved with his son.  On 6.10.2017, following order was passed by the Forum;

                   “Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP No.3 has been filed. Copy be given to other side.   

          Sh. Jaspal, Service Manager of OP No.2 has appeared before this Forum in pursuance of this Forum direction.   He states that he has not misbehaved with the complainant.  He further states that vehicle will be rectified within 15 days. Let the defect of the vehicle be rectified on or before next date of hearing i.e. on 31.10.2017  failing which reply and evidence on behalf of OP No.2 shall be filed on the date fixed and the case shall also be reserved on that date.” 

8.               On 31.10.2017, it was stated by the representative of the appellant/OP NO.3 that a technical team from Chennai has arrived and they will inspect the vehicle to identify the defect and repair it.  The car was sent for repair. Report was submitted in the Forum on 7.11.2017. The said report reads thus;

9.                The Forum, on analyzing the above said report, job cards on record alongwith the complaint, observed as under ;

“On 07.11.2017, the Opposite Party NO.3 submitted its Inspection Report dated 30.10.17-01.11.17 before this Forum stating that the Technical Team of Hyundai especially came from Chennai to Chandigarh to repair the car of the complainant, but the defect could not be detected due to unavailability of specialized tools, which are available only at INQC, Faridabad.  It has also been stated by the OPs that they require the car at Faridabad for examination at least for 12 days to which the complainant forcibly resisted such move.  The complainant is a Teacher in School and reportedly has to waste his 45 working days to get his vehicle in proper roadworthy condition, after repair from OPs in their workshop, but all in vain.

      The OPs, admittedly, despite best efforts could not detect the fault and expressed their inability to repair the Car at Chandigarh.  The complainant has spent Rs.12,58,641/- besides registration and insurance charges, but despite spending such a huge amount, he could not use his car fearlessly. An apprehension of any sudden collapse of the vehicle in mid of the traffic always lurk on the mind of the complainant. There is certainly a major manufacturing defect in the Chassis as well as braking system of the car in question, which causes unusual sound in the car while putting its brakes.  The OPs cannot be allowed to play with the life & safety of its customer by selling such a defective vehicle in the market.  The braking system of a vehicle is backbone of the vehicle itself and the safety of the passengers while travelling in such vehicle cannot be compromised and left to the mercy of such car manufacturers. The Opposite Parties have been given ample opportunity & time to get the car repair, but they could not and expressed their inability to do so.  As such, it is held that the Car in question sold to the complainant is having manufacturing defect.” 

10.         By observing as above, it was specifically stated that there exists inherent/manufacturing defect in the car which could not be identified and the OPs failed to repair the defect despite many efforts. Accordingly it was ordered that OP No.1/respondent No.3 and OP No.3/appellant shall return the amount of Rs.13,60,038/- (which includes price of the vehicle, insurance charges and registration charges) to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of sale i.e. 21.4.2017 till the time payment is made. Further Rs.10,000/- were granted towards litigation costs.  Awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a fixed period, failing which, it was to entail penal consequences. However, qua OP No.2/respondent No.2- Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. , complaint was dismissed.

11.                We have heard Counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the view taken by the Forum holding that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle is perfectly justified.  It is on record and not disputed that before filing the complaint and during its pendency, the complainant visited authorized Service Centers of the appellant/OP NO.3 more than 14 times.  Job sheets/cards are available on record as Annexure C-6 to C-10 and C-13 to C-19. Perusal of those job sheets  clearly indicates that the complainant was continuously complaining about unusual sound coming from the vehicle when the brakes were applied. Despite numerous efforts and virtually dismantling major parts of the car and refixing it, the OPs failed to identify the problem. Photographs on record clearly establish above said fact.  It is not expected that after purchase of a new car it will be put to such vast repairs necessitating change of many major parts like fuel tank, rear shockers, coil springs and dead axle assembly.  It will be very painful for the owner of a new car to see replacement of the parts, in the manner, as in the present case. Instead of enjoying ride in a new car, he rather purchased problem which compelled him to go to service stations again and again. In the report submitted by a specialized team of engineers on 31.10.2017, it was specifically stated that despite thorough checking, they failed to identify the problem. The car was checked by even removing all loose items in the car like seats, spare wheel, dicky tray etc.  even then the source of noise could not be identified.  It was also on record that to identify the problem, cushioning thickness of fuel tank was increased.  It was also said that the car needs to be sent to Faridabad  for 12 days to identify the problem. In the face of above said facts, we are not going to accept the argument of Counsel for appellant that there was no manufacturing defect in the car.

12.               As per order under challenge,  amount paid on account of  insurance charges and registration charges were ordered to be refunded to respondent No.1/complainant with interest @9% p.a..  At the time of arguments, it was intimated to us  that by now the car of the complainant  has covered more than 34,000 kms. The above fact clearly shows that the car was being used. If that was so, there was no reason to grant interest on refund amount of  sale price and there was no justification to order  refund of amount paid towards insurance charges and registration charges. To that extent, order passed by the Forum needs modification and accordingly it is ordered that the  appellant/OP NO.3  shall refund an amount of Rs.12,58,641/-  to respondent No.1/complainant within a period of 30 days, failing which, the said amount will start getting interest @5% p.a. simple till the time of making entire payment. On account of grant of low  rate of interest, it will be open to the complainant to continue to use the vehicle in question.

13.                      So far as appeal bearing No.23 of 2018 filed by the appellant/OP No.1- Ultimate Automobiles Private Ltd. is concerned, it needs to be allowed. Once it is opined that there was a manufacturing defect in the car, in that event, liability cannot be fastened upon the dealer especially when the car was under warranty and no deficiency in providing service has been proved against the said dealer. Above view of ours is supported by the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as  Hindustan Motors Ltd. and another Vs N.Siva Kumar and another 2000(10)SCC 654 and judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Classic Automobiles Vs Lila Nand Mishra and another 2010(1)CPJ 235.

14.                 Accordingly  Appeal bearing No.23 of 2018  filed by the appellant/OP No.1 is allowed and qua it, it is held that liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant and to that extent order passed by the Forum is set aside.

15.                  Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly, as mentioned above.

16.                Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

  17.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.