CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 129/11
Monday the 30th day of January, 2012
Petitioner : K.N.Sasidharan Nair,
Ramakripa,Anikad PO,
Pallickathodu, Kottayam.
(Petitioner in person)
Vs.
Opposite party : M/s. Hyundai Motor India Pvt.Ltd
A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Rd, New Delhi-110044
Rep.by Mr. P.Srivathsan,
Area Parts &Service Manager,
Hyundai Motor India Ltd., NP-54,
Developed Plot, Thiru-Vika Industrial
Estate, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai600032,
(Adv.Vimal Ravi)
ORDER
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 28/4/11 is as follows. On 5-10-2005 he purchased “Hyundai Santro” car from M/s. Popular Hyundai, Popular Motor Corporation, Kottayam which was registered as KL-5-U 7155. Complainant used the vehicle as for fifteen years. The said car was purchased because no other small car in the market, except Wagon-R, was found suitable for the medical trips of his wife who had undergone a ‘Total Knee’ Replacement at Amritha Hospital. The vehicle have maintained by the complainant meticulously upto date. All maintenance attentions were provided strictly in accordance with the Owner’s Manual. As a result the vehicle has remained in excellent condition but for the repeated failure of its ‘power steering gear box’. The 1st failure of the “power Steering gear box” occurred on April 22, 2009 at about 18 thousand KM. The car was examined by the authorized dealer and the parts were replaced free of cost. Though the original warranty of vehicle expired on 5-10-2007, the extra warranty was still remaining valid on the above date. Hence the cost of the repair was borne by the opposite party. The 2nd failure was on 20-1-2011 while the car had covered about 30 thousand KM by the time. The authorized dealer replaced the parts again at a cost of over 16 thousand rupees. The service engineer told that, such failures are caused by fluid deposit that can accrue while the vehicle is idle for more than 2 days. The weekly use of the car ensured was insufficient for the purpose in his opinion. The complainant intimated the Hyundai Company and they replied promptly and one Mr. Vimal Joseph, Service Engineer, was calling to inform that he received the complaint forwarded by HMIL. He told that it was necessary to start the car every other day and to turn the steering wheel left and right to avoid future failures. Mr. P. Srivathsan, Area Parts and Service Manager, Hyundai Motor India Limited contacted over phone and he said that it was necessary to operate the system at least once every two days. The complainant told the opposite party that why this was not mentioned in the “owners” manual and service booklet. According to the petitioner this is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has suffered mental strain, loss and hardships. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant’s car was reported at M/s.Popular Motor World Pvt.Ltd on 21/4/2009 with concern of hard and noisy steering. Accordingly, repair order No.R 200904576 was opened at a mileage of 18128 KMs. After inspection and examination completer power steering gear box was replaced under warranty policy of the opposite party. The warranty of the car expired on 5-10-2009. The complainant after driving the car for more than 31,000/- KMs in about 6 years is now trying to seek replacement of the car with a new one by raising frivolous allegations. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit. The opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version and document. The case of the complainant is that the power steering system of the car became defective within the period of warranty and the opposite party charged price of the system within the period of warranty. According to the complainant once the defective system was replaced without charging any amount. The defect was repeated and the same was rectified by the opposite parties receiving the value of parts and repairing charges. Opposite party taken a contention that the vehicle is having no defects at all. According to them as and when the complainant reported the complaint they rectified the defects. As far as the opposite parties are concern there was no deficiency in service on their part. Admittedly the power steering system of the vehicle became defective two times. Once it was rectified by the opposite party free of costs. The other time it was rectified by the opposite party and they charged the price of parts and other charges. From the available documents and evidence it can be seen that the repairing work was done by the opposite party within the period of warranty. It is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. However the complainant has no a case that vehicle having no other complaint except alleged power steering defects. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the compliant is allowed as follows. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.2000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by complainant.
Ext.A1-is the copy of sale invoice dtd 2/8/02
Ext.A2-Owners manual
Ext.A3-Letter dtd 31/1/11 from petitioner to opposite party
Ext.A4-Copy of e-mail send by opposite party to petitioner dtd 1/2/11
Ext.A5-Copy of e-mail send by opposite party to petitioner dtd 1/2/11
Ext.A6-Copy of e-mail send by opposite party to petitioner dtd 3/2/11
Ext.A7-Letter dtd 17/3/11 from petitioner to opposite party
Ext.A8-Letter dtd 25/3/11 issued by opposite party to petitioner.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
