CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri.K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.53/2010
Tuesday, the 30th day of April, 2013.
Petitioner : Sony Lazarus,
Vellappattu House,
Kizhathadiyoor PO,
Pala, Kottayam.
(Adv. D.Zaibo)
Vs.
Opposite Party : 1) Hyundai Motor India Ltd, A-30, Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi Rept.by its
Managing Director.
(Adv. Vimal Ravi)
2) Popular Motor World (P) Ltd
Thadathil Buildings,
Shastry Road, Kottayam. Rept. by Its
Managing Director.
(Adv.Royce Chirayil
ORDER
Sri.K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant is as follows. He had purchased a GETZ PRIME GNS car from the 2nd opposite party on 4-08-2007, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party on payment of Rs. 4,61,345/-. The vehicle was being operated only under normal usage conditions with at most care. He had abided by all the instructions for the proper maintenance of the car as envisaged in the owner’s manual. The 1st three services of the car were done at the 2nd opposite party’s workshop at Pala. After two months from the date of purchase, a spray of rust were found on the outer body of the car and the same was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party during the first service itself. They responded that it was only an external colour change and did some rubbing and polishing on the body paint. But the same was found continuing thereafter also increasingly and was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party during second and third service also. Every time the 2nd opposite party assured that there is no chance for rust infection and repeated the rubbing and polishing. After completing all the three mandatory services with the authorized dealer, the car was taken to another service centre for the fourth service. Upon a detailed inspection thereby detaching the doors, it was found that the inner body of the car especially of the four doors has been completely infected with rust. The stage of corrosion was found as very belated and holes were about to fall on the body. Immediately the matter was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party and they assured to take up the issue with the 1st opposite party and to take effective steps to replace the car. In spite of this assurance, the opposite parties have not turned up to redress the grievance, now the entire body has been perished due to corrosion, making the vehicle virtually useless. The vehicle became useless due to manufacturing of the vehicle using inferior materials. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to replace the car or to refund the price of it, compensation and costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows.
The 1st opposite party contented that there was no cause of action against the opposite party. There was no manufacturing defect in the alleged car. The complainant purchased a Hyundai Getz car bearing VIN MALBT51GR7MO56785 and Engine No.G4HG7M206792 from the 2nd opposite party. The car was delivered to him on
4-8-2007 in perfect running condition as any other new car, without any technical or mechanical defect whatsoever. The alleged problem of rust stains, if any on the body of the car is not a defect much less manufacturing defect in the car. The rust stains / corrosion may be caused due to road salts, dust control chemicals, ocean air and industrial pollution in high corrosion areas. It is necessary to keep the vehicle clean and free from mud accumulations and accumulation of road salts, industrial pollution etc. The main allegation of the complainant revolves around the so-called rust stains, which is certainly not on account of any manufacturing defects but may have occurred on account of paint scratch, damage and other reasons, which may be attributable to a number of external factors. The complainant has been using the car since 4-8-2007, 5-10-2007,
28-01-2008, 8-7-2008, 11-8-2008, 28-10-2008 and 20-1-2010 respectively, however, on none of the said seven occasions the alleged problem with respect to the rust stains on the car was ever reported by the complainant. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The version of the 2nd opposite party is contending as follows. From the records of the 2nd opposite party it can be seen that the 1st free service was done on 27-09-2007. From the repair order it is seen that the customer’s request was only regarding steering noise and the same was cured. The vehicle was again brought to the 2nd opposite party on 5-10-2007 for fixing the fog lamp. The vehicle was again brought to the 2nd opposite party for its second service on 28-01-2008. On that date BARDHAL cleaning was also done on request. 3rd service was done on 8-7-2008 and even on that date the complainant was only regarding wheel wobbling above 80Km. The allegation that the inner body of the car was found completely infected with rust on detailed inspection and the same was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party. In any event the present complaint being beyond the warranty period, the 2nd opposite party cannot be made liable at all. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext.A1. The affidavit filed by the opposite parties, the documents Ext B1 to B3 marked from the side of 1st opposite party and documents Ext.B4 to B9 marked from the side of the 2nd opposite party. The expert commissioner’s report is marked as Ext.C1.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the car purchased by him became defective due to corrosion and rust. According to him the opposite parties has not taken any steps to rectify the defects of the car. The opposite parties has taken a contention that the vehicle having no manufacturing defects as alleged by the complainant. According to them there were no complaints from the complainant at the times of periodical services of the car to opposite parties. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the car was having some defects of corrosion. Admittedly the car having some defects. The defect was curable. There was no evidence adduced by the opposite parties that the defects occurred due to the negligent act of the complainant. More over even after filing this complaint the opposite parties has not take any steps to examine the disputed vehicle. Hence we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We direct the 1st opposite party to replace the defective body of the car with a new one and pay Rs.2000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri.K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Original invoice dtd 16-7-2007
Documents of the opposite party
Exrt.B1-Copy of owner’s manual
Ext.B2-Copyof repair order dtd 27-9-07, 28-01-08,8-7-08,11-8-08,5-10-07,28-10-08 and
vehicle repair history card
Ext.B3-Copy of warranty policy
Ext-B4-Repair order No.C701643 dtd 27/9/07
Ext.B5-Repair order No.C701741 dtd5-10-07
Ext-B6-Repair order No.314 dtd 28-1-08
Ext.B7-Repair order No1689 dtd 8/7/08
Ext.B8-Repair order No.2359 dtd 11-8-08
Ext.B9-Repair order No.3852 dtd 28-10-08
Ext.C1-Commission Report.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
