Order-8.

Date-23/09/2016.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one Hyundai i10 Car for her personal use on 10/07/2014 from O.P.-2 at Rs.6,00,000/- inclusive road tax and other miscellaneous charges. Warranty of the Car was for two years including free service. Within a year of its purchase there was malfunctioning of the said car and complainant lodged a complain by e-mail dated 21/09/2015 to the O.P.-2 mentioning the details. Complainant had sent her car for five times between July-2015 and September-2015 to O.P.-2 but no satisfactory service was given to solve the problem of the car in question. Thereafter, complainant on repeated occasions sent the car to O.P.-2 but to no good rather recurring problems is carried on, for which requirement of more fuel due to lack of engine malfunctioning and increasing the maintenance cost. Complainant also intimated the matter to the M.D. and C.E.O. of O.P.-1 detailing the defects comes out from the car and in reply that M.D. and CEO informed the complainant that problem had been solved as they charged .Main Wiring Harness. but complainant is not satisfied with the reply of O.P.-1. Complainant moved the matter before Consumer Affairs Department but O.Ps. have not turn up, then the complainant appeared before this Forum with the prayer of her complaint for relief.

Despite service of summons neither the O.Ps. appeared nor did they contest and as such the instant is heard as ex-parte against the O.Ps.

Decision with reasons

On careful perusal of complaint and documents it reveals that complainant purchased one Hyundai i10 motor car on 10/07/2014 with two years warranty. But after taking delivery of the said car it started some problems like as lack in pick up acceleration, vehicle has been shuddering when engine is idle and check engine warning light has been on from Jun-2015. Complainant intimated the matter along with the car to O.P.-2 who is the authorized dealer and service centre at least five times but defects could not be removed by the O.P.-2, then the complainant intimated the matter to O.P.-1, Manufacturer of the Car and after some days the O.P.-1 informed the complainant to produce the car again before the service centre i.e. O.P.-2, then the Engineer detected the defect and changed the Main Wiring Harness and told that problems have removed. Thereafter, while the car was plying on road the defects mentioned earlier had arises again. The complainant on repeated times knocked the doors of O.Ps. and request the O.Ps. that she is in great trouble in plying the vehicle as fuel consumption has increased due to lack of pick up, vehicle has been shuddering when engine in idle condition and check engine warning light has been on still from June-2015 but O.Ps. did not entertain the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant got extended the warranty of the car further one year by paying usual fees to O.Ps. with an expectation that instant defects and further problems will be solved in the warranty period and no extra cost will have to bear.

From the facts of the case and go through the documents we find that the car in question of the complainant is running with a latent defect since purchased, which is not cured till date, though O.ps. have tried but not able to cure the defect fully. It is also fact that the said car is used as private and so it can be presumed that the car is not used roughly like as hired vehicle. If a vehicle has inherent defect the Service Centre and the Manufacturer should have taken proper and intensified care to remove the same and not by casual checkup. No owner and / or consumer can spare much time to attend the service centre in frequent occasions for purpose of removing the same defect.

It appears from the case record that the complainant herself is an Advocate and practicing in High Court and other Courts but she had to send her car on several times to the Authorized Service Centre for removing the same defect which is still persist.

It is common prudent  that if check engine warning light is on all times the total wiring of the car will heat the total wires and at any time may caught fire of the car as the wires have screed out from engine to body of the car.  Moreover, low pick up will consume more fuel than usual consumption for which regular expenses will be increased. Now, the defect of the car is a patent defect  and we think the company’s engineer and mechanic could remove the defect as the warranty of the car is still exist and it will valid up to July-2017 but the O.Ps. harassed the complainant and also did not take proper intensified care in removing the defect of the car. Within the warranty period, It is the sole and extreme liability of the O.Ps. on their own product and they could engage their Senior and / or competent Service Engineer in removing the defect but they did not do so and the defect still persists.

If O.Ps. have no fault and they provided proper service and remove all the defects of the car of the complainant they have the opportunity to appear and submit their version or produce satisfactory documents before this Forum and on the basis of which they can argue that the complainant’s allegations are vague. But in the instant case, despite receive of summons they ignored the Forum. More so, they tried to avoid their loopholes in the matter of rendering proper service to the complainant.

But at the same time it appears that the complainant is using the car and the age of the car is almost two years. So we are not inclined pass any order of its replacement by a new car, more so, when it is not totally obsolete or unworthy to ply. No report of any independent automobile engineer is also before us we, however, think that complainant is also entitled to get compensation for harassment and deficiency of service from the end of O.Ps.

In the backdrop of such state of affairs, discussed hereinabove, we are inclined to hold that the O.Ps. are deficient in rendering proper service and due to laches on their part complainant has suffered immense mental tension, harassment together with monetory loss and as such the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.

In result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part ex-parte against the O.Ps. with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service on their part and for causing immense mental pain and harassment to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which, O.Ps. shall have to pay penal damage  at the rate of Rs.500/- per diem to this Forum till full satisfaction of the decree..

Complainant is at liberty to put this order into execution as per provision of Law.