Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/434/2020

M/s Manya Rice Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Chetan Goel

15 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/434/2020
Date of Institution	:	08/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	15/05/2023

 

M/s Manya Rice Mills through its partner Nishant Verma Vill.Lassoi, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. through its Company secretary, Baani Building, 5^th Floor, Near Apollo Hospital, Jasola New Delhi-110044.
2. M/s Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.154-155, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Amrit Pal Singh Kahlon, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Nikhil Sehrawat, Vice Counsel for Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased Creta car from the OP No.2 being authorized dealer of OP No.1 on 01.02.2017 for sum of Rs.13,07,476/- for personal use (Annexure C-2) colly. It is submitted that as per service book menu at page No.2 it has been specifically mentioned that the warranty period will be in addition to and run parallel to the New Vehicle Warranty and shall exist for a period of 36 months or until the vehicle has been driven for a distance of 80,000/- kms from the date of delivery to the first purchaser whichever occurs first. The complainant had visited to OP No.2 on 06.01.2020 since he was facing problem of peeling off paint, polish and other defects of his car. But the OP No.2 reverts back to complainant that the same will be done after the approval from the OP No.1. Thereafter, the complainant sent email dated 13.02.2020 to OP No.2 (Annexure C-5). The complainant had number of times complained about unsatisfactory performance of this car but the OPs always put the matter on one pretext of other. The complainant has issued a legal notice to the OPs on 07.03.2020 (Annexure C-6). The OP No.2 with the knowledge and consent of OP No.1 sold the second hand car to complainant by misrepresenting this defective to be as a new car. Thus, OPs have cheated and played fraud with complainant. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the period of warranty of the complainant vehicle was for a period of 36 months from the date of first sale i.e., 1.2.2017 to 31.1.2020 and complainant had failed to prove by any document on record that he had reported his vehicle for any such concern within the warranty period. It is further submitted that as per record, complainant had 1^st reported his issue regarding paint on 13.02.2020 through email i.e., after the expiry of the warranty period which was valid from 1.2.2017 to 31.1.2020. It is also submitted that even though the warranty period was over, complainant was offered repaint free of cost as a gesture of “Good Will” but the same was declined by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. It is further submitted that it had there been any manufacturing defect in the paint of the vehicle then complainant would had faced and reported the issue much earlier and not after a period of 3 years. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant himself has shown interest to purchase 2016 manufactured Creta car with specific rebate if available. After checking the record, it was transpired that car in question was available in the stock which was manufactured in November 2016, which was loaded for delivery to OP on 22.12.2016 and accordingly offer was made to complainant with rebate of 45,000/- and the same was accepted by the complainant (Annexure OP-2/7). Even otherwise complainant has no words to say anything in this regard as in invoice sale certificate Annexure OP-2/1 it has been specifically mentioned that manufactured year as 2016. It is further submitted that on 13.2.2020 for the first time complainant leveled alleged allegation in the complaint that too after the expiry of the warranty period with afterthought version only to extort the money from the answering OP. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     Rejoinder on behalf of complainant not filed despite of the opportunity given. Accordingly, opportunity to file rejoinder on behalf of complainant was closed by order of this Commission.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that within the warranty period the disputed vehicle faced the problem of peeling off paint and polish. As per the case of the complainant he has been sold a second hand car by misrepresentation and fraudulent means and therefore, complainant has been cheated by the OPs. The complainant has prayed for the replacement of the car in question.
8.     The stand taken by the OP No.1 is that the complaint regarding the paint/polish was raised on 13.02.2020 after the expiry of warranty period hence, no deficiency in service on its part. On similar lines OP No.2 contested the complaint stating that special rebate of Rs.45,000/- was given to the complainant during the sale of aforesaid vehicle hence, no deficiency in service qua it.
9.     After going through the evidence on record, it is evident from Annexure C-2, that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.13,07,476/- to OP No.2 on 01.02.2017 for the purchase of vehicle in question. It is admitted fact that the vehicle has warranty of 36 months. But as per Annexure C-5, the copy of the email dated 13.02.2020, first time only the complaint was raised with OP regarding paint and polish issue. In our opinion as the aforesaid complaint was reported to the OPs, after expiry of warranty period. Hence, the repair, if any, will be conducted as per the terms and conditions of the OP-company and not under warranty.
10.     On perusal of Annexure OP-1/3 at page No.40 invoice dated 20.03.2018, page No.41 invoice dated 13.09.2018 and thereafter at page No.42 the invoice dated 14.12.2019 respectively show that there is no complaint with regard to the paint and polish raised by the complainant any time. More so, at page No.44, the complainant has signed the satisfaction note after collecting the vehicle from the workshop of the OPs. Hence, in our opinion, the bald assertions on the part of the complainant are meritless and in absence of any expert opinion qua the allegation the present complaint being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
15/05/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member