Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/571/2020

Parminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Himmat Singh Sidhu

30 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/571/2020
Date of Institution	:	4/12/2020
Date of Decision	:	30/10/2023

 

Parminder Singh son of S. Gurdial Singh r/o H. No.587, Dashmesh Nagar, Gali No.4-B, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Hyundai Motor India Limited No.54, Thiru-VI-Ka, Industrial Estate, Ekkatuthangal, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Naidu, through its Managing Director.

 

2. Joshi Hyundai, Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Limited plot No.66, Ram Darbar, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

 

3. Human Resource Department, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Unit No. C-113-114, First floor, office suites Elante, plot No.178-178 A, Industrial  and Business Park, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

.  ….. Opposite Parties

 

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

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Vaneet Mittal, Advocate for OP No.1&3.
	:	Sh. Ambuj Shukla, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased a Xcent car from OP No.2  in November 2019 for earning his livelihood to run it as commercial taxi.  On the date of delivery the complainant noticed that the car attracts towards left side and further engine light started blinking and the complainant raised the issue with the OPs. The OPs set right the engine light by refreshing the software but could not rectify the problem of left side attraction of the car. The complainant during the first service raised the issue of alignment with the OP but they did not do anything. Unfortunately, on 31.12.2019 the car met with an accident. The complainant brother raised the issue with the OP No.2 that the car fetches towards left side and due to this  car met with an accident. But the service attendant told that the alignment is accurate and alignment will be checked.  Thereafter the issue of alignment was raised with Ops on 20.1.2020 and thereafter on 11.3.2020  while getting the car serviced but nothing was done by the OPs and due to the negligent act of OPs the car of the complainant again met with an accident on 9.7.2020 and 31.8.2020 due to alignment problem.  Thereafter the complainant approached the Ops many times with the issue of alignment and ultimately on 18.10.2020  the Ops took the  car in its possession for  repair but the problem could not be rectified rather they sent the car to other dealership  at Mohali  and the alignement was done on 20.10.2020. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1and 3 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the liability of the answering OPs being the  manufacturer of Hyundai vehicles is limited and extend to its warranty obligations alone. Error/omission/misrepresentation if any at the time of retail sales of the car on part of the dealer cannot be fastened upon the answering OPs. The cars are purchased by the dealers from the answering Ops after payment and thereafter they sold the same to the customer. It is averred that the answering Ops are only manufacturer and the complainant has placed nothing on record to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question  and as such the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in its reply denied that the  alignment of the car was not correct and stated that the car can be out due to driving conditions of the road. It is averred that as and when the vehicle was report for service the same were done to the satisfaction of the complainant and even the accidental repair wer done as per demand of the complainant. It is admitted tht the vehicle was reported for free service on 11.3.2020  and the demanded job were duly done but the complainant refused for wheel alignment. Even the complainant when approached for  paid service on 14.10.2020 denied for wheel balancing and wheel alignment and tyre rotation. However, it is admitted that  on 20.10.2020 the wheel balancing was got done from the workshop at  Mohali. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OP No.1 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 27.07.2022 it was proceeded against exparte
5. No rejoinder filed.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that the OPs did not resolve the alignment issue as and when the same was reported to them.
9. On the other hand the stand of OPs No.1&3 is that they have nothing to do in respect of the dispute in question as the allegations are against OP No.2 for non-alignment of vehicle in question. Apparently there is no reason to hold OPs No.1 and 3 responsible for any act of OP No.2.
10. On the other hand, OP No.2 the service provider had taken the stand that it is the choice of the complainant himself to keep the issue of wheel alignment pending. It is the complainant who refused for wheel alignment on occasion of each and  every service.
11. We have gone through various job sheet on record  i.e. Annexure C-4 dated 20.1.2020, Annexure C-5 dated 11.3.2020, Annexure C-6 dated 9.7.2020, Annexure C-7 dated 6.8.2020, Annexure C-8 dated 31.8.2020, Annexure C-9 dated 24.9.2020  and Annexure C-10 dated 14.10.2020. After perusal of these job sheets it is revealed that the job of wheel alignment was kept pending and not even a single  time the issue of wheel alignment  was resolved. The  OP No.2 has not placed on record any cogent evidence to substantiate its stand that for what reason the wheel alignment was deferred or not done by it despite various visits of the complainant  and when the car was in its premises.
12. So far as the question of fault of  OPs No.1&3 the manufacturer is concerned, they have taken contradictory stand  in para No.8 and 10 of their reply supporting the contention of the complainant that the defect or repair which was left undone is the fault of OPs No.2 and  it has also been alleged that error/omission/misrepresentation if any at the time of retail sales of the car  on the part of the dealer cannot be fastened upon them. The brand new cars are sold by the dealer to the customer under sale invoice and the title of Hyundai vehicle passes on to the dealer the moment it is put on a common carrier. On the contrary the OPs No.1&3 have  supported the contention of OP No.2 that it was the choice of the complainant to keep the issue of alignment pending or deferred. The OPs No.1&3 cannot run away from its liability by taking shelter of contradictory stand.  No follow up was taken by Ops No.1&3 for issue in hands from OP No.2 even during the proceedings of the present case. No such like action taken report against OP No.2 has been placed on record to authenticate their stand.  Hence, the act of OPs for non-providing proper after sale service amounts to deficiency in service, which caused immense physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant and they are liable to compensate the complainant.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

 

1. to pay Rs.75,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

2. to pay Rs.8500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.      This order be complied with by the OPs within Forty Five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
30/10/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member