Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/630/2018

Hemen Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pankaj Chandgotia

14 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/630/2018
Date of Institution	:	06/12/2018
Date of Decision	:	14/12/2020

 

Hemen Aggarwal s/o Shri Rajeshwar Aggarwal aged 50 years r/o House No.5427/1, Category-I, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., 2^nd, 5^th & 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi through M.D.
2. Berkeley Hyundai (BERK AUTO LLP), Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Amrit Pal Singh Kahlon, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are, on 6.4.2018, complainant had purchased a CRETA 1.6 VVT car from OP-2, which was manufactured by OP-1, against payment of Rs.12,16,867/-. His case is, from the date of purchase, the vehicle did not give satisfactory results. The tyre of the car was suddenly deflated due to bursting on 27.4.2018, just after 21 days from the date of purchase, when the car had hardly driven for about 400 kms. The complainant had to pay Rs.1,750/- for replacement of the tyre. His further case is, there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alphabet ‘A’ from the emblem ‘CRETA’ was detached while driving the car on 7.5.2018 i.e. within a month of purchase and he had to pay Rs.764/-.  His further case is, in July- August, 2018 water drops started  pouring in from near the glass portion of the left front door and on 13.8.2018 there was rain in Chandigarh and the complainant noticed heavy drops of water falling in from the left front door as also from the driver’s door, which was also got videographed. His further case is, on 25.8.2018 the matter was reported to the workshop of OPs and they replaced the rubber of the windows and subsequent thereto the problem was again noticed qua leakage of water, but, on checking the OPs did not repair it.  Other bundle of facts have also been detailed on the aforesaid points and according to the complainant it constitutes manufacturing defect in the vehicle as well as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to replace the car in question, pay compensation of Rs.two lakhs and Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint. OP-1 in its written reply claimed the given facts do not constitute manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Its case is, required parts were changed under warranty. The damaged part i.e. emblem was not covered under the warranty. Maintained the tyre was manufactured by the other company and as per report dated 28.4.2018 the tyre had a side wall impact with sharp object and was not covered under the warranty. Per OP, complainant had not got the vehicle inspected from the experts to say there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Hence, claimed there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     OP-2 filed its separate written reply and the crux of its reply is, complainant had approached it six times i.e. on 10.5.2018, 15.5.2018, 13.6.2018, 25.8.2018, 16.9.2018 and 23.9.2018 and these visits were either for scheduled service  or damage to the tyre due to some external impact. It is also claimed, complainant had also visited the workshop of OP-2 once  with complaint of water entering the car on 25.8.2018 and as the door rubbers which needed replacement were not in store, he was asked to come again after some days.  On 16.9.2018 the door rubbers were replaced under warranty and the complainant went satisfied.  Again the complainant had come on 23.9.2018 with the same complaint and the vehicle was thoroughly checked and no water entry was found.  Averred even the CD/videography annexed were of 3.12.2018 and not 13.8.2018.  Allegedly, complainant had created/engineered evidence with a view to make a claim. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.     Separate rejoinders were filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated. It has been clarified, as a matter of fact, videography was done with mobile in August, but the same was converted into a CD in December, at the time of filing of the instant consumer complaint. The complainant still maintained there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, as such the claim for replacement of the car or refund of the amount alongwith compensation and cost of litigation asked for.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsels for OPs and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     Assuming, though not concluding, the bundle of facts put forth in the consumer complaint are true, even then, though we are not experts in the subject, we could not persuade ourselves that it is a case of manufacturing defect which warrants replacement of the vehicle as a whole or tantamount to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
8.     The bundle of facts detailed are, tyre replacement was done. To this effect, proper explanation has come that there was impact and the tyre was also manufactured by the tyre company and not the OPs and the evidence had not been brought on record by the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the car or it had not burst after having hit with some sharp object. These are minor wear and tear when the vehicle is put on the road and the amount of Rs.500-600 had to be paid for repair of the car and the OPs had put in affidavits that it was a physical damage and not a manufacturing defect. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant, even till today after passing of about two years, other tyres had also burst in the same fashion so as to hold there was inherent defect in the tyres and the entire vehicle, as a whole, needs to be replaced in favour of the complainant or to pay the on road market value of the vehicle.
9.     The other facts detailed are also from day to day routine that emblem was removed for which the complainant had to spend Rs.764/- while it is the case of the OPs, it was a physical damage and the removal of alphabet ‘A’ from the word ‘CRETA’, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be construed to be a manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant has failed to convince us or to cite any law that in similar situated proposition it was held to be a manufacturing defect.
10.     The third circumstance detailing the manufacturing defect is leakage and water drops started pouring in from the glass portion of the left front door and rubber was admittedly changed. Second time the same complaint was brought in and on being inspected by OPs, no such defect was found and the OPs claimed complainant engineered the rebuttal evidence with a view to make out a claim for replacement of the vehicle.  Again to us it appears to be a matter of common sense, when there is leakage of water entering near the glass portion of door itself suggests rubber was loose and the same was replaced.  There could not be any other cause for leakage except for the loose rubbers as admittedly it is not the case nor any evidence led that there were holes in the tin of the window on account of which the rainy water had peeped into it. 
11.     Perusal of the record further shows, on request reference was made to the Punjab Engineering College (PEC) to examine the vehicle in the light of the defects pointed out by the complainant in the consumer complaint and then to submit report. The PEC in their report submitted as observed in the order dated 30.9.2020 there is no such facility available with them to detect the leakage and rightly so there cannot be any expertise on account of leakage through rubbers and it could only be corrected with replacement of the rubbers or to say tightening the rubbers. Even the OPs had replaced the rubbers once, free of cost, and on second complaint made, on inspection no entry of water was found. The said facts are supported by way of affidavit of the OPs
12.     The complainant had also run the vehicle in the rainy season of 2019 and 2020, but, new evidence was not brought in to say the said problem still persists. Even during the pendency of the present consumer complaint when the expert report i.e. of PEC was received stating there is no such facility available to detect the leakage, this Commission, at the time of arguments, expressed the desire to make such demonstration in its office premises by throwing of water with pipe. Though we have not reflected in the zimine order, the complainant stated, it could only be done in the washing centre where water is put with pressure. Why such pressure is to be employed and the vehicle is not to be put in garage, these facts are unexplainable on record.
13.     The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect and his claim to this effect has not been supported by any expert evidence. In this regard, OPs have placed reliance on Vikram Bajaj Vs. Hind Motor (India) Ltd. & Anr., 2009 (II) CLT 670 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission wherein it was held where the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove the goods is suffering from manufacturing or latent defect, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present consumer complaint. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
14/12/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President