3.Tapan Industries (Tapan Hyundai) at Shamlech, Barog Bye Pass, Solan, Himachal Pradesh-173211 through its Partner/Proprietor/Authorized person.
(Email:hyundaisalesgm@tapan.industries).
4.Goyal Automobiles at GT Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana 141008 through its Partner/Proprietor/Authorized person.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended upto date
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
MS.MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : In person along with Sh.Hari Om Jindal,
Advocate
For OP1 and OP2 : Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate
For OP3 : Sh.Ajay Garg, Advocate
For OP4 : Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute against the OPs with regard to supply of defective car i.e. Creta 1.6 VTVT Petrol EX to the complainant. As per the averments made in the complaint, after taking the delivery of the car, it was noticed by the complainant that the door window glasses were having water residue stains and the black window strip/trim was having dirt/mud/filth on it. Further, the front centre arm rest was broken and also the silver trim on the steering wheel was broken/cracked. Further, the complainant has pointed out deficiencies/defects in the car which are duly mentioned in the para no.6 of the complaint. It has been averred that despite repeated emails/letters and approaches to the OPs, they failed to adhere the genuine requests of the complainant qua repairing/replacing the vehicle of the complainant. So, by filing the present complaint, complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
i)Direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the entire sale amount of the vehicle, extended warranty amount and polishing charges i.e. approximately Rs.12,00,000/- or replace the vehicle with a brand new defect free vehicle of the same model or higher model.
ii)Impose compensation of Rs.5 lacs on the OP1 to OP4 for the above stated deficiency in service and direct the OP1 to OP4 to pay the compensation to the complainant.
iii)Impose litigation expenses of Rs.31,000/- on the OPs and they directed to pay the same to the complainant.
iv)Issue directions to Ministory of Road Transport/appropriate Ministry to cancel the dealership of OP3 and OP4.
v)Issue Directions to Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India to suspend car manufacturing licence of OP1.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who filed their respective separate written statement. The OP1 and OP2 in their written statement parties took the preliminary objections that the present complaint is frivolous, baseless and without any merits qua the answering OPs as the same revolves around vehicle being Hyundai Creta 1.6 VTVT petrol EX purchased from the showroom of OP3 for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,62,928/- on 15.02.2021. Further, it has been taking the objections that on a bare perusal of the averments raised in the complaint, it becomes evident that the present complaint solely revolves around deficiency in service on the part of OP3 and OP4 and the answering OPs has been impleaded in the present complaint on the back of a wrongful assumption that OP3 and OP4 are agents/parents of the answering OP organization. Furthermore, no monies whatsoever for the purchaser of the car or extended warranty have been paid by the complainant to the answering OPs and as such, it is submitted that there exists no privity of contract qua the answering OP and the complainant. On merits, all other allegations levelled in the complaint against the answering OP have been specifically denied and it is prayed that the complaint against answering OPs is liable to be dismissed.
3. OP3 filed the separate written statement whereby OP3 has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous and the same has been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and defame the OPs including the present answering OP. The vehicle in question sold to the complainant by the OP3 is not an old/used/repaired one but a brand new one of model 2019. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The defects allegedly alleged by the complainant are clearly visible to the naked eye and had there been any of the defects alleged by the complainant in the vehicle, the same would have been clearly visible to him at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after its thorough inspection in the presence of his accompanying family members to his and their satisfaction and no such defect was pointed out by him or them at that time. The complainant was attended by the OP3 with utmost professional manner and there had been no deficiency in its service rendered to him. There is no defect in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant and there had been no deficiency in service rendered by the OP3 and as such no liability can be fastened upon it. On merits, the allegations levelled by the complainant qua vehicle suffering from manufacturing defects or other defects are specifically denied being wrong. Further, it has been submitted that the car is under warranty and if there are any defects, they can be removed on visiting the showroom. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
4. OP4 in its separate written reply took the preliminary objections that the present complaint against OP4 is not maintainable in the present form as the same is bad for mis-joinder of party. Complaint is premature as no cause of action so far accrued to the complainant specifically against the OP4 for the gross relief claimed because the complainant has not applied for cancellation of extended warranty as well as he has not claimed refund thereafter with the OP4 or with the manufacturer i.e. OP1. Role of OP4 is limited to the extent of selling extended warranty which is required to be honored by manufacturer which has no concern with the dispute of the case of the complainant and same is not amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has alleged in its complaint that OP4 has wrongly issued the extended warranty but he has nowhere disclosed that he purchased the extended warranty for the specific period and paid the amount. Further, it has been submitted that contents of the complaint are based on false and non-existing allegations specifically against the OP4 because only under para 10, it is alleged that OP4 charged Rs.3990/- for polishing and further in para no.1 it is stated that excessive amount for service/polish without even giving promised result whereas after polishing or service, vehicle was taken by the complainant being fully satisfied. Bill is dated 20.06.2020 Ex.C11 and the complainant even has not disclosed date of polishing nor entire particulars of bill amounting to Rs.3990/- dated 20.06.2020 and even the complainant has taken contradictory stand and thereafter, present complaint was filed after one year without any documentary evidence showing rendering of deficiency in service against the OP4. Further, the present complaint is bad for claiming relief of Rs.12 lacs from the OPs including answering OP without distinguishing the nature of relief and amount or without any deficiency in service on the part of the OP4. On merits, all other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
5. Both the parties submitted their respective evidence in the shape of affidavit and documents and also submitted the written arguments in support of their respective pleadings as alleged in the complaint and in the written statements.
6. During the course of oral arguments, settlement has been effected between the parties. Pursuant to which, counsel for the OP3 has made the following statement:-
“As per the instructions of the OP3, they are ready to change the front arm rest console and silver trim on steering of the car in question subject to supply of the old parts by the complainant.”
7. Simultaneously, counsel for the OP4 has also made the following statement:-
“Grievance of the complainant regarding difference of validity period in the extended warranty as per invoice Ex.C10 dated 20.06.2020 for vehicle No.PB-10-HJ-9009 for the period valid upto 31.08.2024 whereas same is required to be valid upto 16.02.2025 as per representation of the complainant Ex.C12 to the OP1. OP4 undertakes that they will represent the grievance of the complainant for change of the validity period to 16.02.2025 instead of 31.08.2024 within 7 days from today.”
8. The aforesaid offers given by counsel for the OP3 and OP4 has been duly accepted by the complainant who appeared in person today by suffering statement to the effect that he is ready to accept the change of the front arm rest console and silver trim on steering of the car in question with new and defect free parts at Ludhiana and is also ready to supply the old parts of the car to the OP3 upon such replacement within 30 days from today. Further, he undertakes that he relinquished all the other relief as prayed in the complaint and prayer made for disposal of the complaint as per the aforesaid statements of the parties.
9. In view of above settlement and recorded statements of the parties today itself, the present complaint stands disposed of with the direction to the OP3 to change the front of arm rest console and silver trim on steering of the car in question with new one at Ludhiana free of costs as per the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from today, subject to the condition that complainant will supply the old defective parts of the vehicle to the OP3. Further, OP4 is directed to represent the grievance of the complainant for change of the validity period in extended warranty of the vehicle No.PB-10-HJ-9009 by mentioning the same as 16.02.2025 instead of 31.08.2024 within 7 days from today. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of the compromise, no order as to compensation and litigation cost is passed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission Dated:13.04.2023 Gurpreet Sharma.
