CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.394/2007
SH. AJAY PAL
S/O SH PRITAM PAL
13 BABAR ROAD, BENGALI MARKET,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- THE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR
HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY,
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA
- SH. H.S. LEEM,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,
PLOT NO.H-1, SIPCOT, INDUSTRIAL PARK,
IRRUNGATTUKOTTAI, CHENNAI-602105
- SH. PARVEEN KHOKHAR,
REGIONAL MANAGER(NORTH),
HYUNDAI MOTOR PLAZA LTD.,
A-30, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEAR SARITA VIHAR, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044
- THE DIRECTOR/MANAGER(WORKSHOP),
HYUNDAI MOTOR PLAZA,
A-30, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEAR SARITA VIHAR, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 21.12.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he is owner of a car make Hyundai Elantra and the same met with an accident on 15.04.2007 and it was taken to OP workshop for accidental repair on 16.04.2007 and accordingly repair order was prepared. OP assured that the car will be returned back after all the repairs on 24/25.04.07 i.e. after eight/nine days of handing over the possession of the car.
It is further stated by complainant that he neither received any phone call nor any message from OP workshop for taking delivery of the car. When complainant went to OP workshop on 27.04.2007 for delivery of his car, he was told that repair could not be carried out due to non availability of the running board (a spare part) in the workshop at Delhi. It was also stated that it was not available in northern India and to be ordered from Chennai and therefore it would take another 3-4 days to deliver the car.
Complainant again approached OP on 01.05.2007 and he was informed that auto robot in the workshop was not working and it will take another three/four days. Complainant requested for an alternate arrangement of any vehicle but it was stated that there was no such vehicle available. Complainant suffered a lot as he is an advocate by profession and since about one month complainant has been constrained to use a taxi for his commutation. Even OP company stopped responding to his phone calls and having no alternate, complainant was constrained to serve a legal notice on 12.05.07 for delivery of his car however he did not receive any response from OP. It is further stated that on 18.05.07 complainant again visited the workshop of OP and he was told that company is not in a position to deliver the car as the repairs have not been done. He was not told as to when the car will be delivered. But ultimately an assurance was given that the car will be delivered within 8-9 days but till filing of the complaint, the car was not delivered.
It is prayed that OP be directed to make immediate delivery of the car and to pay the amount spent on his commutation since 26.4.2007 @ Rs.2000/- per day plus Rs.1 lakh for compensation and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.
OPs in their reply stated that delay in carrying out accidental repairs was occasioned due to non availability of essential tools required to undertake the repair, like the Side Sill and also due to malfuntioning of the Auto Robot in the workshop, both of which are instrumental in carrying out accidental repairs in the car in question.
It is further stated that tentative date of delivery (of about 8-9 days later) was given to the complainant and complainant was never assured that delivery of the car will be given to him on 24/25.04.07. Complainant was duly informed about the unavoidable delay in carrying out the repairs due to non availability of essential part required to undertake the repairs, and also due to malfunction of the Auto Robot in the workshop, both of which are instrumental in carrying out accidental repairs. The auto robot was rectified by T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Limited, and only thereafter accidental repairs were taken. Thus, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 05.06.07 in perfect running condition after carrying out accidental repairs to the entire satisfaction of the complainant as it is evident from the signature of the complainant on the repair order. It was not possible to give an exact date of delivery of the car to complainant. Malfunctioning of the auto robot had impeded repair work on other vehicle as well, which led to considerable increase in the workload of the workshop. Such a situation was quite different form normal days when a fixed schedule for carrying out repairs is in place, and it is possible to project the tentative date of delivery. However, in the instant case the pilling up of vehicles made it difficult to predict any such date.
We have heard complainant as well Ld. counsel for OPs. It is submitted by complainant that it is clearly mentioned in the Job Card that vehicle will be delivered after 8-9 days. On the contrary it is submitted by Ld. counsel for OP that it is not possible to give the exact period within which repair of the car will be carried out. It is further submitted that a tentative date was given. Since the necessary parts were not available the car could not be repaired. It is further submitted that complainant has duly signed the job card wherein it is specifically stated that:-
“I hereby authorize for the above repairs to be executed using necessary materials and I am affixing my signature below in evidence of agreeing to the terms and conditions given in the reverse side of this repair order absolutely and unconditionally”.
As per clause 3 of terms and conditions - “The customer will not hold HMIL responsible/liable for any delay in delivery/in carrying out of repairs/in procurement of spare parts for reasons beyond HMIL’s control.”
It is further submitted on behalf of OP that it is clear from the job card that complainant has agreed to terms and conditions stipulated in the job card and as per clause 3 of terms and conditions OP were not liable for any delay in delivery/carrying out the repair/any procurement of spare parts for the reason beyond the OP’s control.
Now the main point for consideration is whether procurement of the spare parts is beyond the control of OP. OP in their reply stated that delay in carrying out accidental repairs was occasioned due to non availability of essential tools required to undertake the repair, like the Side Sill and also due to malfunctioning of the Auto Robot in the workshop, both of which are instrumental in carrying out accidental repairs in the car in question.
The car was given for repair on 16.04.07 and it was delivered to the complainant on 05.6.07 i.e. after 47 days of its delivery to OPs for repair.
If the contention of OP is accepted in terms of clause 3 of terms and conditions “OP is not liable for any delay in carrying out repairs/procurement of spare parts for reason beyond its control”, complainant has nothing to do as to how much time workshop has taken for getting their auto robot rectified for repairing the car of the complainant. It is not such a thing which should have taken 47 days. If the contention of complainant is agreed, then such a workshop can delay the delivery of car for months and years and take the shelter ‘it is not liable’. It was for the OP to prove on record that despite its efforts and written letters they were not able to get the spare parts and they were not able to get their Auto Robot repaired but OPs have not placed any such thing on the record. A vague assertion is of no consequence. It was for OP to prove that it was for reason beyond their control and they could not get the thing done but OP has failed to do so. In fact if OPs were not in a position to repair the car, OPs should have immediately returned the car to complainant and should have stated that due to the non availability of these parts they will not be able to carry out the repair in near future. There is definitely deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
However OPs are definitely not liable to arrange for alternative vehicle for the complainant as there was no such agreement between the parties that if the vehicle is not delivered within such time, OP is under obligation to provide alternative vehicle for commutation of the complainant.
Complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% from the date of filing of the complaint as well as Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
