Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/235/2013

A.Veerasamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.V.K.Thampi

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 08.07.2013

Date of Reservation      : 29.07.2022

Date of Order               : 29.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 235/2013

MONDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

A.Veerasamy, S/o. Angappan,

No.30, East Raja Street,

Mamallapuram-631 600.

Kanchipuram District.                                                                                                                                                        ... Complainant                      

 

..Vs..

1.M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited,

   Rep by Manager,

   NP.54, Developed Plot,

   Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate,

   Ekkaduthangal, Guindy,

   Chennai - 600 032.

 

2.M/s.Kun Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd,

   Rep. by Manager,

   D-5, Ambattur Industrial Estate,

   Chennai - 600 058.

 

3.M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited,

   Rep. by Manager,

  162, ECR Pudupattinam,

   Kalpakkam - 603 102.                                                                                                                                                  ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. S.V.K. Thampi

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party   : M/s. IPN Associates LLP

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party  : M/s. S.V. Udaya Kumar

Counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party  : Exparte

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party and on endorsement made by the Counsel for the Complainant and Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party the written arguments being treated as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service together with interest @18% and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for the mental trauma, pain and suffering and to pay Rs.3500/- per day from 18.03.2012 towards charges for hiring taxi for the daily use of the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant states that he is the owner of the Car-Hyundai Verna with Registration No. TN 21 AE 0003. The said car was registered on 07.06.2007 with the Registering authority. The vehicle was purchased with the financial support from ICICI Bank Limited. He has paid the entire dues to the said Bank. The vehicle has been lastly insured with the 3^rd Opposite Party for the period from 01.06.2012 to 31 05.2013. On 17.08.2012 at about 10.30 PM the above said vehicle met with an accident while he was driving the same. The car was in very good running condition on the date of accident. Immediately he informed J2 Adyar Traffic Investigation Police Station about the accident and the J2 Adyar Traffic Investigation Police Station of the Tamil Nadu Police issued a certificate dated 18.08.2012 narrating the details of the accident. At his request the 2^nd Opposite Party took the vehicle to its workshop at D-5, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058 for repair at 11.30 P.M. On 17.08.2012 after collecting a sum of Rs 2500/- in cash from the Complainant. On 21.08.2012, after checking the damages, the 2^nd  Opposite Party estimated the damages and repair charges and gave the estimate to him. The total cost mentioned in the estimate dated 21.08.2012 given by the 2^nd Opposite Party is Rs.1,06,545/-. Based on the estimate given by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the 3^rd Opposite Party finalised the claim without intimating the Complainant. The 2^nd Opposite Party collected the sum of Rs.1,06,545/-from the 3^rd Opposite Party. On 15.10.2012 the 2^nd Opposite Party informed him that the engine and gear box of the vehicle have also to be replaced/repaired and requested him to collect a supplementary estimate to be submitted to the 3^rd Opposite Party. When he questioned as to why the said matter was not mentioned in the first estimate, the Opposite Party informed him that at the time of issuing the estimate dated 21.08.2012, the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to check the E.C.M. and Turbo Charger etc. Saying so, the 2^nd Opposite Party issued a supplementary estimate to the tune of Rs.1,34,294/-. The supplementary estimate issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the 3^rd Opposite Party. But the 3^rd Opposite Party blatantly refused to pay the amount mentioned in the supplementary estimate given by the 2^nd Opposite Party saying that they have settled the claim as per the first estimate. He put to great hardship from 18.08.2012 without a vehicle. Everyday he has to spend a sum of Rs.500/- towards charges for hiring a taxi car. Stating all the above facts, he sent a letter to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 23.11.2012, a copy of the said letter was sent to the 1^st Opposite Party. To the said letter he received a reply dated 29.11.2012 from the 1^st Opposite Party reply assuring prompt action. To the said letter he received a dated 20.12.2012 from the 2^nd Opposite Party accusing him that the vehicle was not maintained at regular interval, to cover up its deficiency in service and fault of not including the cost of repairing the engine and gear box etc. in the first estimate. The denial by the 3^rd Opposite Party to play the cost estimated in the supplementary estimate is only due to the negligence and deficiency in service by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Instead of supporting its customer in getting the accident claim from the 3^rd Opposite Party, the 2^nd Opposite Party to finding out extraneous reasons to blame him. He asserts that the vehicle was in excellent running condition upto the moment of accident on 17.08.2012. The false accusation by the 2^nd Opposite Party about the maintenance of the vehicle has caused great hardship and mental agony to the Complainant. Apart from that the he is being denied the necessity of a motor car from 18.08.2012. The 2^nd Opposite Party, apart from making the vehicle roadworthy, has to pay compensation him. He estimates his claim for compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-in addition to the expenses in making the vehicle in running condition. Narrating the above facts he caused a lawyer's notice dated 29.01 2013 to be issued to the Opposite parties calling upon the 1^st  and 2^nd opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in addition to the actual cost of expenses for making the vehicle in running condition. All the opposite parties received the said notice. Before issuing the said lawyer's notice he visited the 2^nd Opposite Party's place several times and requested them to make the vehicle ready and gave several letters repeating the same request. In these circumstances he is entitled to claim in addition to the amounts claimed in the lawyer's notice dated 29.01.2013, a sum of Rs.3500/- each day from 18.08.2012 till the entire amount is received from the 2^nd Opposite Party. To the said lawyer's notice the 2^nd Opposite Party sent a belated reply dated 20.03.2013 denying his claim. In this connection the Complainant reiterates that the vehicle was in good running condition till the date of accident and the 2^nd Opposite Party did not deliver the vehicle after repair in running condition and hence to say that E.C.M. and turbo charger had no role to play in the accident estimation are invented for the purpose of making a semblance of defence to the claim made by the Complainant. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

It is submitted that as far as they are concerned, the present complaint is frivolous, misconceived and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts, is devoid of any merits whatsoever and deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that the Complainant has got his vehicle insured and as admitted by him the claim regarding damage was approved by the insurance company. Further, the Complainant alleges the deficiency in service, etc.. by Opposite Party No.2 & 3 only and nowhere in the Complaint, the Complainant, states an iota of negligence / accusation against the Answering Opposite Party / manufacturing defect, etc. The Complainant himself has given a clean chit to them in Para No.5 and 9 of his Complaint that the vehicle / car was in an excellent running condition upto the moment of the accident. He has appraised performance of vehicle and very much satisfied with the performance of vehicle. Further, as they deal with all its dealers on "Principal to Principal" basis, any act conduct, representation by / of the Dealer, they cannot and will not made liable.  That accidental repair work can be done on chargeable basis alone either under insurance or on cash payment basis. Alleged dispute of partial settlement of claim is between Complainant and insurance company and they being manufacturer of car has no role in the present dispute. As there are no generic or specific allegations against them in the Complaint and since the Complainant accuses only the Opposite Parties 2 and 3. The vehicle was reported for accidental repair which is not covered under warranty policy. Warranty cover for further period may be extended on chargeable basis. They have no responsibility for the accident/accidental claim. The alleged legal notice was received and asked the 2^nd Opposite Party to redress the concern of the Complainant. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4. Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

            It is submitted that the Vehicle Hyundai Verna bearing Registration No. TN 21 AE 0003 of the Complainant had met with an accident on 17.08.2012 and subsequently the said vehicle was brought to their workshop for carrying out the body repairs on 17.08.2012 and the said vehicle was preliminarily estimated at the cost of Rs.1,06,546/-. As it has already been reiterated in their reply notice issued, even where it was clearly emphasized that the 3^rd Opposite Party had meticulously examined the car and with the instructions of the Complainant the 3^rd Opposite Party had accepted the claim amount and which was duly received by the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  The subject vehicle was brought to their workshop on tow and not on a running condition as a routine schedule after completion of the accidental repairs and the amount was released by the 3^rd Opposite Party which is also reiterates that the said Complainant had given instructions to the 3^rd Opposite Party to release the amount. Hence the claim shall also be dismissed in all fairness. Inspite of continuous reiteratous the Complainant was not satisfied with the services rendered by this Opposite Party for reasons best known to him, had come forward to demand to replace the ECM and turbo charger for better stability of the car on several requests by this Complainant due to establishing cordial relationship and esteemed customer service they have forwarded the second estimation purely on the instigation of the Complainant and the Complainant also assured to them that he would be able to get the approval from the 3^rd Opposite Party to complete the above mentioned job and this is innocent of what transpired between the Complainant and the 3^rd Opposite Party and why and the said estimation was rejected by the 3^rd Opposite Party is for reasons best known to them. It is submitted that the 2^nd Opposite Party had issued a letter dated 31.01.2013 where it has been clearly stated that the 3^rd Opposite Party have not come forward for the Complainants claims regarding replacement of the turbo charger and ECM which clearly proves that the claim of deficiency of service is ruled out.  They have duly replied in detail vide notice dated 28.03.2013 to the legal notice issued by the Complainant on 29.01.2013 in which itself they have reiterated that it had no role to play in the accident estimation. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

5.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15  were marked. The 1^st  and 2^nd  Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties no documents were marked.

6.   The 3^rd Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice on them, was called absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 :-

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant is the owner of the Car-Hyundai Verna with Registration No. TN 21 AE 0003 and the said car was registered on 07.06.2007 with the Registering authority. It is also an undisputed fact that the said vehicle was lastly insured with the 3^rd Opposite Party for the period from 01.06.2012 to 31 05.2013. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 17.08.2012 and on the same day the vehicle was taken for repair at the request of the Complainant. On 21.08.2012, after checking the damages, the 2^nd Opposite Party estimated the damages and repair charges and the total cost mentioned in the estimate dated 21.08.2012 given by the 2^nd Opposite Party is Rs.1,06,545/-. Based on the said estimate, the 3^rd Opposite Party finalised the claim and the 2^nd Opposite Party collected the sum of Rs.1,06,545/-from the 3^rd Opposite Party. The disputed fact is that on 15.10.2012 the 2^nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the engine and gear box of the vehicle have also to be replaced/repaired to run the vehicle in road worthy condition, amounting to a sum of Rs.1,34,294/-, which fact and amount was not included in the estimate given to the Complainant at the time of submitting the insurance claim to the 3^rd Opposite Party, and requested to collect the second estimate to be submitted to the 3^rd Opposite Party, and on submission of supplementary estimate, the same was refused blatantly by the 3^rd Opposite Party, amounts to deficiency of service on the part of 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties. 

The Contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that being the manufacturer, there is no manufacturing defect in the Complainant’s vehicle, as admitted by the Complainant himself in his complaint that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2007 and the said car is in good running condition till the date of accident, ie. Till 17.08.2012, hence no manufacturing defect could be attributed against them and further no cause of action made against them. Further contended that the Complainant’s claim and prayer is against the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties.

The Contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party is that the allegations of the Complainant with regard to replace/repair of engine and gear box was not properly inspected at the time of first estimate are false, as the 3^rd Opposite Party had meticulously examined the car settled the claim and only with the instructions of the Complainant they have received the claim amount and as the Complainant had demanded to replace the ECM and turbo charger for better stability of his car, the same was estimated at Rs.1,34,294/- and only on the instigation of the Complainant that he would get approval from the 3^rd Opposite Party, they had forwarded the second estimation. Further contended that they had informed the Complainant that the 3^rd Opposite Party had not come forward for his claims regarding replacement of the ECM and turbo charger.

On discussion made above and on perusal of the records, it is clear that the subject vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident and the estimation dated 21.08.2012 of the 2^nd Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 being the claim form submitted to the 3^rd Opposite Party, for a sum of Rs.1,06,545/- and the said claim has been settled to the 2^nd Opposite Parties for carrying the accidental repairs of the Complainant’s vehicle. The contention of the Complainant that the 2^nd Opposite Party had failed to inspect his vehicle thoroughly before delivery of the vehicle in good road worthy condition, informed him on 15.10.2012 about the replacement of Engine and gear box, is denied by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the second estimation was forwarded only at the instigation of the Complainant, though the Complainant in his proof affidavit had mentioned the said contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party as twisting facts, the Complainant had not denied the contention that only on the instigation of the Complainant the second estimation was forwarded and only on the assurance that the Complainant would get approval from the 3^rd Opposite Party, is not denied, hence the contention of the Complainant that the 2^nd Opposite Party had failed to inspect engine and turbo charger when his vehicle was taken for accidental repairs is not legally sustainable. Further the Complainant had not produced any proof to establish the second claim made to the 3^rd Opposite Party and no document of repudiation made by the 3^rd Opposite Party has been produced before this Commission. And the judgement reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1313 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Honda Cars India Ltd Vs Sudesh Berry and others,  “wherein it was held that the car was used for more than 10 years, whereafter it suffered an accident. There is no iota of material that accident occurred as a result of any manufacturing defect, manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable”. The said judgement squarelly applies to the 1^st Opposite Party, in the instant case. Hence, we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party against whom no cause action was made except as a manufacturer is nothing but to maintain the Complaint before this Commission, that the 2^nd Opposite Party has not acted negligently in inspecting the vehicle at the time of accidental repairs carried out and as against the 3^rd Opposite Party, the Complainant had failed to prove by documentary proof that the second claim submitted was repudiated by them. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 has not committed any deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:-

As we discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and thereby the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed in the complaint and also for any other relief/s. Accordingly, point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 29^th of August 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	07.06.2007	Certificate of Registation of the Hundai Verna Car with Registration No. TN 21 AE 0003
Ex.A2	01.06.2011	Certificate of insurance issued by the United India Insurance company limited.
Ex.A3	18.08.2012	Certificate issued by the J2 Adyar Traffic Investigation Police Station of the Tamil Nadu Police to the Complainant
Ex.A4	21.08.2012	First Estimate for repair given by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A5	30.08.2012	Motor claim form submitted by the Complainant to the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A6	16.10.2012	Supplementary Estimate given by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A7	19.10.2012	Letter from the Complainant to the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A8	23.11.2012	Letter sent by the Complainant to the 1st  & 2nd Opposite parties
Ex.A9	29.11.2012	Reply received from the 1st  Opposite Party
Ex.A10	20.12.2012	Reply received from the 2nd  Opposite Party
Ex.A11	29.01.2013	Lawyer's notice issued by the Complainant's advocate to the opposite parties
Ex.A12	-	Acknowledgement card received from the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A13	-	Acknowledgement card received from the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A14	-	Acknowledgement card received from the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A15	20.03.2013	Reply received from the 2nd Opposite Party by the Complainant’s advocate.

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT