Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/161/2016

Sh. Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Bhardwaj

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/161/2016
Date of Institution	:	09/03/2016
Date of Decision	:	12/04/2018

1.     Sh. Om Parkash son of Sh. Maan Singh since deceased through his LRs :-

        i)      Rajesh Kumar s/o late Sh. Om Parkash r/o House No.1193, Sector-15, Panchkula.(Son)

        ii)     Suman Lata w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar r/o Sector 20, Society No.80, Panchkula. (Daughter)

        iii)   Navneet Kumar s/o late Sh. Om Parkash r/o House No.1193, Sector-15, Panchkula.(Son)

        iv)    Anju Bala w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar r/o House No.71, Green Park, Behind Civil Hospital, Yamunanagar. (Daughter)

2.     Smt. Sushma w/o late Vinod Kumar r/o 2040, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     Hyundai Motor India Limited, DLF Building Tower-B, 3^rd Floor, IT Park, Chandigarh 160101 through Director/Manager/Authorised representative. 

2.     Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 355, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula (Haryana) through Director/ Manager/Authorised representative. 

… Opposite Parties

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

                           

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainants.
	:	Ms. Parminder Kaur, Counsel for OP-1.
	:	Sh. Aftab Singh Khara, Counsel for OP-2.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Averments are, the complainant purchased a Hyundai i20sportz 1.4 DSL BSIV car (color white) from OP-2 vide invoice dated 16.2.2012 for an amount of Rs.6,61,855/-.  OP-2 was the authorised dealer to sell the vehicles manufactured by OP-1. There was a warranty for a period of two years.  The said vehicle contained air bag in the event of serious frontal or side collision and it was a life saving feature of the vehicle. On 13.9.2013 the vehicle met with an accident in which husband of complainant No.2 namely Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma died. FIR No.789 dated 16.9.2013 was registered at P.S. Singh Bhagwantpura. Air bag did not open and it was got inspected from expert who opined it to be a manufacturing defect. Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for payment of Rs.6,61,855/- after collecting the salvage of the car from complainant No.1, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.         OP-1 contested the complaint and raised the preliminary objections of complaint being time barred. However, the manufacture of the vehicle not disputed. The manufacturing defect had been denied.  It is also the case, expert report is just based on averments which cannot be relied upon. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended. 
3.         OP-2 had filed separate written reply raising preliminary objections of complaint being time barred. The warranty was not extendable and entire warranty was given by Hyundai Motors India Limited for Hyundai vehicles and no dealer or its agent or employee is authorised to extend or enlarge its warranty. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         The complainants filed rejoinder and reiterated the claim as put forth in the consumer complaint. 
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  Our conclusions are as under :-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is the case, husband of complainant No.2, namely Sh. Vinod Kumar had died in an accident and the other occupants including the complainants had suffered injuries. It is not the case, the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company.  It is also not the case, no petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was preferred for the damage of the vehicle in the accident. The complainants set forth deficiency in service as there was manufacturing defect in the air bags which did not open as a result of the impact of the accident.  It is on this score, cost of the vehicle has been claimed from the manufacturer as well as the dealer.  The foundation of making such a claim is the report of the expert who has opined as such. 
8.         The date of purchase of the vehicle is 16.2.2012. The date of accident is 16.9.2013 and the date of filing of the present complaint is 9.3.2016 i.e. to say if the period of limitation is reckoned from the date of accident i.e. 16.9.2013 the consumer complaint ought to have been filed on or before 16.9.2015 i.e. within two years i.e. prescribed limitation.  Not only this, the complainants had not moved an application for the condonation of delay in the light of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the consumer complaint is time barred and in the absence of application for condonation of delay, it is not entertainable.  If the vehicle was insured, death claim, injury claim or to say personal damage claim could be claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
9.         Now we shall refer to the basis of the claim i.e. to say the amount of Rs.6,61,855/- which is the entire price of the vehicle. The amount of depreciation has not been subtracted and it is not the case, due to non-inflation of air bags, the accident had taken place.  The case is, it did not provide any safety due to manufacturing defect.  Even if it is within the warranty period, only the defective part is to be replaced and not the entire vehicle which has been damaged in the accident and its value is to be claimed from the insurer and not the manufacturer of the vehicle.  The value of the part i.e. to say air bags has not been broken up independently and worked out separately. Our attention was drawn to case titled as Hyundai Motors India Limited Vs. Surbhi Gupta, R.P. No.2854 of 2014 whereby the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 14.8.2014 while interpreting the warranty policy had categorically held that as per warranty policy given by the manufacturer, it was liable to be replaced on that part which was acknowledged to be defective and not to replace the car itself. In the present case, there has been damage to the car and the claim was to be preferred against the insurer and not the manufacturers.
10.         The insurer i.e. the Insurance Company has not been joined as a party to the present case.  There is also no averment in the consumer complaint that no such claim for personal damage of the vehicle is preferred against the insurer before the MACT.
11.         The report of the expert i.e. Annexure C-7 shows manufacturing defect was noted. The inspection was done one sided that too at post accidental stage. It is corroboratory in nature and the expert opinion is always an opinion and not a conclusive proof.
12.         In view of the aforesaid discussion and appraisal of record, we proceed to dismiss the present consumer complaint. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President