Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/325/2015

Jitender Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai India Motor Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vijay Mangala Adv.

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	325 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	22.06.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	09.03.2017

 

 

 

Jitender Kumar Verma s/o Sh.S.K.Verma, R/o House No.331/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Hyundai India Motor Ltd., Registered Office and Factory, Kanchipuram, Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District Tamil Nadu-602117, through Mr.Bo Shin Seo, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.

2]  Hyundai India Motor Ltd., Regional Office-I, DLF Building, Tower-B, 3^rd Floor, RGCT Park, Chandigarh 160101, through Mr.Abhinav Narula Area Sales Manager.

3]  KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002, through its Managing Director Karan Grover.

... Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER 

        

 

Argued by:-

Sh.Vijay Mangla, Counsel for complainant.

Ms.Parminder Kaur, Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj Counsel for OP No.3.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased a brand new Hyundai Grand i10 1.2 GLS Sportz 1.2 BSIV with Catalyzer Car bearing Chassis No.MALA851CLFM246846*B, Engine No.G4LAFM586971 from OP No.3, manufactured by OP No.1, on 4.4.2015 by paying Rs.5,12,986/- and it was got insured from National Insurance Company Ltd. valid for the period 14.4.2015 to 13.4.2016.  It is averred that the said vehicle was got registered with Registration Authority, Chandigarh and the vehicle was allotted Regd.No.CH-01-BB-1484.  It is also averred that the complainant spent Rs.11,278/- on the insurance of the vehicle and Rs.27,880/- on its registration.

         It is submitted that immediately after the purchase, the vehicle in question started giving ignition problem, which was rectified by the Service Centre on 21.5.2015.  It is also submitted that when the complainant hardly driven the vehicle 1.5 kilometer, the vehicle lost its pick up and inspite of pressing the full throttle, the race does not pick-up in any gear. The matter was reported to the Service Centre of OPs, who towed away the vehicle.  The complainant on 27.5.2015 was communicated by the OPs that the engine components needs replacement and ultimately, the whole engine of the vehicle was replaced by the OPs (Ann.C-7).  However, even after replacement of the engine assembly, the complainant noticed that the problem still subsists in the vehicle, as such the complainant again reported the matter to the OPs.  It is submitted that the OPs again informed the complainant that the replaced engine also requires replacement as the same is having same defect and the vehicle is not picking back combustion. Thereafter, the complainant on 13.6.2015 sent a communication to the Opposite Parties demanding replacement of the vehicle, or refund of the sale price including the cost of insurance and registration charges, since the vehicle sold is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect which could not be cured inspite of replacing the whole engine assembly.

         It is submitted that the complainant purchased the said vehicle after getting finance of Rs.3.00 lacs from HDFC Bank Ltd.  It is pleaded brand new vehicle purchased by the complainant, which only covered 200 kms. less in a month, encountered with the defect and is lying with the Service Centre for OPs since 22.5.2015 for its rectification.  As a result, the complainant not only suffered mental tension on account of personal as well as professionally but also suffered on account of his work since 22.5.2015 till date.  It is also pleaded that as the vehicle is having a latent inherent manufacturing defect as inspite of replacing its engine, the defect could not be rectified by the OPs, the complainant had lost his patience and confidence in the vehicle, and as such does not want to retain the same. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant’s concern with respect to poor pick-up has already been resolved under warranty and the vehicle is ready for delivery at the workshop of OP No.3 since 21.6.2015 but the complainant is not taking delivery of the car despite repeated requests from workshop.  It is submitted that to remove all apprehension of the complainant with respect to vehicle, the engine assembly of the vehicle has already been replaced under warranty after obtaining his consent and hence the complainant’s demand for replacement of the vehicle or refund of price thereof is devoid of any merit.  It is denied that the vehicle in question is suffering from latent inherent manufacturing defect. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The ld.Counsel for OP NO.3 did not file separate reply and adopted the reply filed by OPs NO.1 & 2 by appending a note to this effect on the reply of OPs No.1 & 2.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs in the reply.

        

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       There is no dispute with regard to the fact that complainant purchased a brand new Hyundai Grand i10 1.2 GLS Sportz 1.2 BSIV with Catalyzer Car bearing Chassis No.MALA851CLFM246846*B, Engine No.G4LAFM586971 from OP No.3, manufactured by OP No.1, on 4.4.2015 by paying Rs.5,12,986/-. It is also an established fact that immediately after its purchase, the said car encountered with ignition pick-up problem and it was taken to the workshop of Opposite Parties for rectification of said defect on 22.5.2015.

 

7]       To cut short the details, admittedly the engine of the car in question has been replaced twice by the OPs (one time with the consent of the complainant and one without consent), which resulted in the change of engine number of the car against the initial/first one. 

 

8]       During the course of proceedings, an expert opinion was sought to comment upon the working of the vehicle. The expert opinion, sought for, has been received on 12.7.2016 from PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, wherein Dr.V.P.Singh, Professor, Mechanical Engg. Deptt., PEC University of Tech., Chandigarh, Dr.Sushant Samir, Associate Professor and Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I., has opined as under:-

“The vehicle having registration no.CH01BB 1484, Engine No.G4LAFM56964 (as per actual), Chassis No.MALA851CLFM246846*B was presented for inspection.  The vehicle in question was inspected and test driven for 17 kms.  It is pertinent to mention that the engine number mentioned in the Certificate of Registration (G4LAFM586971) is different from the engine fitted in the vehicle (G4LAFM56964).

After perusal of the records and discussions with both the parties, it was stated that the problem of low pick up was there in the vehicle from the beginning (vehicle odometer reading before the test drive was 252 km only).

During inspection and test drive it has been observed that the vehicle was running smoothly and there was no problem of low pick up. The problem of low pick up mentioned by the complainant could not be ascertained as the engine of the vehicle was changed twice, once with consent and once without consent of the complainant.”  

 

9]       The above report clarifies that the vehicle in question is now performing well after the change of the engine. 

 

10]      At the time of arguments, it has been vehemently asserted by the complainant that due to change of the engine of the vehicle in question and because of non-supply of the requisite documents by the OPs in regards to the change of engine number, it has become very difficult for him to get the same registered with correct engine number. Also claimed that the OPs are liable to bear the registration charges, apart from the depreciation of the cost of the vehicle in the market due to change of engine twice. Claimed further that the insurance company has also refused to insured the vehicle as its RC is not having correct engine number.

 

11]      We duly support the assertion of the complainant as genuine, who has been harassed thoroughly by the OPs, firstly by supplying a defective vehicle and thereafter despite replacement of the engine of the vehicle in question twice, failed to issue the relevant/requisite documents to the complainant, as desired by the Registering Authority concerned, with regard to new engine number of the vehicle.  The OPs failed to provide the due assistance to the complainant to get his vehicle registered with new engine number.

 

12]      It is only with the intervention of this Forum, the OPs, during the pendency of the case, issued one letter dated 3.1.2017 in favour of the complainant thereby certifying the new engine number of the vehicle in question, but that too failed to get the fruitful results.

 

13]      It is pertinent to mention here that due to deficient act of the OPs, the complainant has been deprived from usage as well as enjoyment of brand new vehicle, even after spending a huge amount on its purchase and put him in a miserable state of affairs.

 

14]      From the above observations, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved, as a result the complainant has suffered a lot, thus, he is also entitled to be adequately compensated. Therefore, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against OPs.  The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-

 [a]     To issue all necessary documents in favour of the complainant as well as to the Registering Authority concerned and provide full assistance, enabling to get the engine number of newly installed engine, incorporated in the  registration certificate  of the vehicle in question and also to bear the expenses thereof, if any;

 

[b]      To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment caused due to deficient act of the Opposite Parties as well as towards the depreciation of a brand new vehicle;

 

[c]      To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-;

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount as at sub–para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para [c] above.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

9^th March, 2017                                                                         Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER