DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.09 of 03-01-2011 Decided on 20-06-2011
Jagmohan Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Sh.Mohinder Singh, Resident of D-207, Thermal Colony, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Hyundai Motor India Limited, A-30 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, Phase-I, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its MD/Chairman/ GM/President/CMD. DPG Hyundai Goyal Automobile Ashirwad Complex Village, Chamarhedi, Rajpura Road, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, through its Prop./ Partner/MD. M/s Raja Hyundai Raja Motors, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./ Partner/MD.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Parveen Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1. Sh.K.K.Vinocha, counsel for opposite party Nos.2&3.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that Smt. Lalita Kwatra wife of Sh. Narinder Kwatra purchased one Verna Car Model 2007 vide Engine No.076715 and Chassis No.021959 from the opposite party No.2 and later on, the said car bearing No.HR-03-H-6489 was sold to the complainant by her. She has also given affidavit to this effect. On 23.11.2010, when the complainant was coming back from Chandigarh to Bathinda, he approached the opposite party No.2 for the service of the said car. The service was done and the seals of the injectors were changed by the opposite party No.2 and charged Rs.4,618/- vide Invoice No.B201003036. The opposite party No.2 changed the oil filter cartridge etc., and assured the complainant that the car is ready for ride. After getting the car, on 24.11.2010, the complainant proceeded for Bathinda. On 26.11.2010, the said car could not start and the complainant called Raja Hyundai Raja Motors to check up the Verna Car who took the vehicle by towing to their workshop. After checkup, it was noticed that 9 litter engine oil was drained from the car and injector bolts were found loose due to which engine was seized. The complainant got repaired the fuel pump and injectors nozzles for a sum of Rs.11,000/-. After opening the car, the opposite party No.3 gave the estimate of Rs.93,271/- for repair of the car. The opposite party No.3 told that the engine was seized due to leakage of front side bolt, injector bolt found leak, 4 injectors were handed over to the customer for repair. They further told that the high pressure pump need to repair from Hissar and advised overhauling of engine. The complainant was told that the engine oil was filled 9 litter instead of 5.3 litter. The complainant was advised by the customer repair centre of the opposite party No.3 for repair but the opposite party No.3 is not setting right the vehicle without getting the payment in advance. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party Nos. 1&2 for the payment of the repair or to direct the opposite party No.3 to set right the vehicle without any charge but the opposite parties are not paying any heed. The complainant has further alleged that under forced circumstances, he wrote a letter dated 18.12.2010 to the opposite party No.2. The complainant contracted the opposite party Nos.1 and their different offices mentioned in the said letter on mobile for giving directions to the opposite party No.3 to repair the vehicle without any charge as there is no fault of the complainant, the fault lies with the opposite party No.2 who gave service to the car which became inoperative/created complication. The opposite party No.3 is directly doing the repair under the direct supervision of the opposite party No.1 and is vicariously liable for all the damages done during their job and the complainant is not liable to suffer due to negligence of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.3 is charging Rs.150/- per day for car parking since 26.11.2010. The complainant under forced circumstances made the payment to the opposite party No.3 for getting the car repaired. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite party No.1 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the allegation in the present case against the opposite party Nos.2&3 for not carrying out satisfactory repairs/services in his car and for charging an amount of Rs.93,271/- for carrying out the repairs in his car. The responsibility of the opposite party No.1 is restricted and limited to warranty obligations which in the present case has expired in view of the fact that the car is around 4 years old and has met with three accidents since the time of its purchase. The verna car in question was sold by M/s Pioneer Hyundai to one Lalita Kwatra on 29.03.2007. It was delivered in perfect running condition as any other new car, without any technical or mechanical defect. The car was however, driven in the most rash and negligent manner which resulted in three accidents of the car within a period of less than four years of its purchase. The complainant's car reported for first accident repair on 22.05.2007 within the first two months of its purchase. Thereafter, the said car reported for accidental repairs on 16.07.2008 and 25.03.2009. The opposite party No.1 deals with all its dealers on principal to principal basis and the concerned dealer is responsible for error/omission/ misrepresentation. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that on the basis of information provided by the opposite party No.2 on 23.11.2010, the complainant reported the vehicle in question for paid service at a mileage of 69550 kms with a request to check noise from front side, change Engine oil/oil filter, check/change Fuel filter/Air filter, washing and cleaning. On inspection, it was found that the injectors needed replacement but the complainant refused to replace the same. The complainant wanted to replace only injector washer purchased from the local market and provided the same for fitment. The opposite party No.1 advised the complainant that it might create some major problem in the vehicle but on insistence of the complainant, the same was fitted in the vehicle. The complainant has purchased the vehicle from the first owner, she has used the vehicle for more than three and half years. The vehicle had met with an accident thrice and got repaired. Periodic service of the vehicle was also not carried out regularly. Repair works in the vehicle had also been carried out from local market. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that on the basis of information received from the opposite party No.3, on 26.11.2010, the complainant brought his car at the workshop of the opposite party No.3 at a mileage of 69782 kms, with a request to check starting trouble and to clear Fuel pump. On investigation, the injectors and pump of the car were found defective. The complainant got the same repaired by Boch Service Centre, Hissar. After fitments of injectors and pump, when the car was started, there was heavy noise in the car. Thereafter, Engine was opened and found that some major parts including Crank Shaft Assembly needed replacement. The estimate was given to the complainant. The complainant refused to get replace some parts including Crank Shaft. The complainant got the same repaired from the local market. Thereafter, the car was delivered to the complainant on 31.01.2011 at his own risk. The complainant also signed the note with regard to this repair at the time of delivery of the car. 3. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it carries the business at Bahadurgarh, Distt. Patiala where the complainant approached on 23.11.2010 and got his car repaired but as required/facilitated to him at that time at his own risk and cost. In column of 'remarks and advice for customer if any' of the job card regarding the car in question, it has been duly mentioned as under:- “Two injector need to replace but refused by customer. He want to change only injector washer provided by customer from Market. We are not responsible for further concern.” Accordingly, the vehicle was repaired as required/facilitated to the complainant and to his satisfaction. In token of said note and satisfaction, the complainant signed the job card at Bahadurgarh, Distt. Patiala. So, the Consumer Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. On 23.11.2010, when the complainant brought the car to the workshop of the opposite party No.2 with a problem of leakage of oil and abnormal noise from front engine. Inspection was carried out by qualified and experienced staff, it was found that the injectors were leaking and needed repairs. As per set-up made by manufacturer/opposite party No.1 in respect of the said defective parts, repair can be done at Hissar or at Dehradoon. The complainant was told accordingly but the complainant insisted to change washers only. His vehicle was repaired temporarily at his own risk and cost so that he can reach at his home town at Bathinda from where he will make requisite arrangements. The complainant arranged local washers from Patiala market and got them fitted at his own risk and cost and the professional advice of service manager of the opposite party No.2. In column of remarks of the job car, a note was given in this respect. Further, he got the engine oil changed as a lot of engine oil had already leaked and there was little oil in the engine at that time. He made the payment only in respect of work done to his satisfaction. He also signed the job card certifying that the repairs have been carried out to his entire satisfaction on 23.11.2010 itself. The opposite party No.2 has denied that the complainant got the delivery on 24.11.2010. The fact is that the car was delivered on the same day i.e. on 23.11.2010 at 4.15 P.M. The car remained in working order from 23.11.2010 to 26.11.2010 when it stopped starting. The car never broke down on the way. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that technically, the engine can seize if it is driven without engine oil and not because of excess engine oil. Similarly, if injector bolts are loose even then the engine will not seize. As per history of the car, maintained computerizedly, it reveals that the service and repairs from authorized dealers after 3rd free service at 18685 kms. was never carried out from the Hyundai authorized workshop till 48417 kms. that too for the replacement of the left hand side outer rear view mirror. The PMS carried out at any authorized workshop after 3rd free service was 54604 kms. i.e. after 36000 kms. So, the condition of maintenance and upkeep of car in question can be assessed easily. The vehicle in question had met with accidents 2/3 times and its owner may not have rectified the defects to save money. The opposite party No.2 has further clarified that it had filled 5.3 liters of Engine Oil and the same fact is supported by invoice dated 23.11.2010. A letter dated 08.12.2010 was duly acknowledged and replied. 4. The opposite party No.3 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant took delivery of his car after repair to his satisfaction on 31.01.2011. While getting delivery on 31.01.2011 and even before the date fixed for putting in appearance, the complainant having been satisfied with the job done undertaken to withdraw his complaint against the opposite party No.3 and in this respect, he has given a note on repair bill as well as satisfaction voucher dated 31.01.2011. In this way, the complainant was required to withdraw this complaint against the opposite party No.3 but he has been continuing the same. On 26.11.2010, the opposite party No.3 received a telephone call from the complainant that the car in question is not starting and required to check it at his home. The opposite party No.3 sent their technicians and they checked the car and told to the complainant that the car is required to be taken to their workshop and on agreeing by the complainant, the technicians brought the car by towing to the workshop of the opposite party No.3. On checking various repairs were found to be done which included High Pressure Pump, Fuel Pump and Injectors to be repaired from Hissar as per set-up made by the manufacturer. Engine of the car needed to be over-hauled. The parts requiring repair from Hissar were handed over to the complainant on 27.11.2010 who at his own got those parts repaired. On 09.12.2010 after fitting these repaired parts, the car did not started as more parts were required to be repaired. On requiring by the complainant, estimate to the tune of Rs.93,271/- was given to him for replacing required new parts on 17.12.2010. The complainant shown his inability to spend such a huge amount and shown his interest to repair the replaceable parts from local market at his own risk and costs. The complainant again came on 06.01.2011 and took these parts for repair from market for which he signed a note. On 31.01.2011, the repaired and replaceable parts were fitted and after doing other jobs, car of the complainant got started and he took its delivery to his satisfaction. Thereafter, he signed the separate satisfaction voucher after driving it on road. The complainant paid repair bill of Rs.23,010/- on 31.01.2011. All the opposite parties are independent entity having their own independent business, profits and losses. The repair work is independent business of the opposite party Nos. 2&3. After warranty period, each dealer use to charge money independently from customer concerned for each and every job/ repair done. 5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 7. The car bearing No. HR-03-H-6489 was purchased by the complainant from one Lalita Kwatra wife of Sh. Narinder Kwatra, bearing Model 2007 vide Engine No.076715 and Chassis No.021959. When the complainant was coming back from Chandigarh to Bathinda during journey, he contacted the opposite party No.2 for getting his car serviced. The same was serviced by the opposite party No.2 and the complainant paid Rs.4,618/- on 23.11.2010 vide Invoice No.B201003036. The opposite party No.2 changed the oil filter cartridge etc and assured the complainant that the car is ready for ride. After taking the delivery of the car, the complainant started his journey towards Bathinda on 24.11.2010. On 26.11.2010, the said car could not start and he called the authorized dealer i.e. Raja Hyundai Raja Motors to check up the said Verna Car and took the same by towing it to their workshop. 9 litter engine oil was drained from the car and injectors bolts were found loose due to which the engine was seized. The complainant got repaired the fuel pump and injectors nozzles and charged Rs.11,000/-. The opposite party No.3 conveyed the complainant the estimate of Rs.93,271/- for repair of the said car and the engine was seized due to leakage of front side bolt, injector bolt found leak, 4 injectors were handed over to the customer for repair. The High Pressure Pump also need to repair from Hissar and over hauling of engine was advised. The complainant was told that the engine oil was filled 9 litter instead of 5.3 litter. So, the main allegation of the complainant that the engine has been seized because the engine oil has been poured in excess instead of 5.3 ltrs. and injector bolts were loose. 8. To support his version, the complainant has placed on file photocopy of manual 11 Vehicle Specification where the lubrication chart has been shown, the Engine Oil in case of Diesel, drain and refill (with oil filter):5.3 (4.6 lmp.qts). The complainant has also got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties 18.12.2010. 9. A perusal of Ex.C-4 which is Invoice dated 23.11.2010 issued by the opposite party No.2 shows that the engine oil has been poured 5.3 ltr in the vehicle. Further, a perusal of Ex.C-5 shows that 9 ltrs of engine oil was drain out from the car. There were many other problems in the said vehicle. The complainant has submitted that when he took his vehicle to the opposite party No.3 for repair, it was conveyed to him that 9 ltr. engine oil was drained out of the vehicle whereas the capacity of the engine is 5.3 ltr. 10. The opposite parties have submitted in their separate written statement as well as their evidence that on 23.11.2010, the complainant was coming back from Chadigarh to Bathinda, he stopped at Bahadurgarh, Distt. Patiala as the said car became defective and the complainant required emergency repair. So, he brought the said vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party No.2 with problem of leakage of oil and abnormal noise from front engine. On inspection by qualified and experienced staff, it was found that the injectors were leaking and needed repair. As per set-up made by manufacturer/opposite party No.1 in respect of the said defective parts, repair can be done at Hissar or at Dehradoon. But on the insistence of the complainant to change washers only, it was repaired temporarily at the risk of the complainant so that he can reach at his home town at Bathinda. The complainant arranged local washers from Patiala market and got them fitted at his own risk and cost against the professional advice of service manager of the opposite party No.2. He also got the engine oil changed as a lot of engine oil had already leaked and there was little engine oil in the engine. He made the payment in respect of work done to his satisfaction and signed the job card certifying that the repairs have been carried out to his entire satisfaction on 23.11.2010 itself and accordingly took the vehicle. 11. Sh. Surinder Monga, General Manager, Raja Hyundai, Raja Motors, Bathinda has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-3 that on 26.11.2010, the opposite party No.3 received a telephonic call from the complainant that his car in question was not getting started and required to check it at his home. The opposite party No.3 sent their technicians who brought the car by towing to their workshop. On checking, it was found that there were many problems in the said vehicle which included High Pressure Pump, Fuel Pump and Injectors which are to be repaired from Hissar as per set-up made by the manufacturer. Engine of the car needed to be over-hauled. Parts requiring repair from Hissar were handed over to the complainant on 27.11.2010 who at his own got repaired. On 09.12.2010, after fitting these repaired parts, the car did not start. The estimate of Rs.93,271/- was given to the complainant for replacing required new parts on 17.12.2010 but the complainant shown his inability to spend such a huge amount and shown his interest to repair the replaceable parts from local market at his own risk and costs. On 06.01.2011, the complainant bought the parts for repair from market at his own risk and cost for which he signed a note. On 31.01.2011, the repaired and replaceable parts were fitted and after doing other job/repair, car of the complainant get started and he took the delivery of the vehicle to his satisfaction. In this way, the car was repaired at the risk and cost of the complainant to his satisfaction. The complainant had signed separate satisfaction voucher after driving it on road and paid the repair bill of Rs.23,010/- on 31.01.2011. the complainant has signed the satisfaction note vide Ex.R-4 that he was satisfied with repair of the car. The complainant has taken the delivery of the car on 31.01.2011 vide Ex.R-5 after giving his satisfaction to the repair done by the opposite party No.3 and has filed case against the opposite party No.2 in the Consumer Forum. When the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No.2 on 23.11.2010, it has covered the mileage of 69550 kms. There was problem with regard to noise from front side, engine oil, fuel filter, air filter and oil filter and for washing and cleaning. On inspection of the car, it was observed that the injectors of the complainant's car needed to be replaced. The complainant did not agree for the replacement of the injector but only wanted the injector washer to be replaced which was purchased by the complainant from the local market. 12. The opposite party No.2 filed an application during pendency for dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party No.2 on territorial jurisdiction by treating the same as preliminary and legal objections. The opposite party No.3 has also filed separate application to dismiss the complaint as per undertaking and satisfaction dated 31.01.2011 given by the complainant on repair bill as well as satisfaction voucher. 13. Reply to both the applications has been filed by the complainant. With regard to the application of the opposite party No.2, the complainant has replied that he has availed the services of the opposite party No.2 under the direct supervision of the opposite party No.1 who is the manufacture of the Hyundai car and the opposite party No.1 is having branches all over India including one at Bahadurgarh, Patiala where the car was repaired and they got hefty amount for that purpose for which, the present complaint has been filed. The car of the complainant became defective at Bathinda after getting the services of the opposite party No.2 and on their direction, the car was given to the opposite party No.3 for repair that also cheated the complainant by getting hefty amount for repairing the car but the car is still not set right. No satisfaction note was given by the complainant rather they made a note before repairing the car under the apprehension that they may not be dragged into the litigation if the car is not upto the mark. The opposite party No.2 has put the old ring whereas they got the amount for new ring for which engine of the car became defective. The opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. The complaint under 'Act' is required to be filed where the branch office of one of parties holds its office or carries on business as per definition u/s 11(2)(b) of the 'Act' which is reproduced as under:- “Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution.” Hence, an application filed by the opposite party No.2 is dismissed. 14. Reply to the second application i.e. of opposite party No.3 has been filed by the complainant. The complainant has replied that the car became defective after getting services from the opposite party No.2 and on their direction, the car was given to the opposite party No.3 for repair. No satisfaction note was given rather they have got in writing in advance from the complainant before repairing the car and handed over the same to him. Mere getting signed the satisfaction note does not amount to dismissal of the complaint. The application filed by the opposite party No.3 is on the very early stage. Hence, after going through the record, this application is accepted and the complaint is dismissed qua opposite party No.3. 15. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is very much clear that the main allegations are against the opposite party No.2 from where, the complainant has got repaired his car on his way back to Bathinda and has alleged that the opposite party No.2 has poured more engine oil than specific limit. A perusal of Job Card Ex.C-5 shows that 9 ltrs. engine oil was drained out from the car whereas, there was some quantity of engine oil in the vehicle prior to filling the same in the said vehicle by the opposite party No.2. As per standard fitments of the car, only 5.3 ltrs engine oil can be poured and defects had arisen due to the more engine oil. The complainant has paid Rs.4,618/- for getting his car repaired from Bahadurgarh, Distt. Patiala. 16. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2 as if the complainant was not ready to get his car repaired according to set-up made by the manufacturer and was not ready to get replace the parts with branded parts, the opposite party No.2 had option to refuse the complainant to repair the said car instead of putting sub standard parts but the opposite party No.2 has not done so rather it has repaired the car with sub standard parts knowingly that these would not work for long. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.1&3. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 20.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
