CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/207/14

          Date of Institution:-    28.03.2014

          Order Reserved on:- 02.04.2024

                         Date of Decision:-      24.09.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ShriVarunBedi,

R/o House No.59, Second Floor,

Paschim Enclave,

New Delhi - 110087

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited
5.  

Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola,

New Delhi – 110025

2. M/s Malwa Auto Sales (P) Ltd.

NH-1, 31 K.M. Stone, G. T. Road,

Kundli, Sonipat – 131028, Haryana

…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatOP-1 is the manufacturer of cars under various brand names including Hyundai Accent. OP-2 is authorised service provider and the agent of OP-1. He is owner of Hyundai Accent car bearing No.DL4CM1178. On 25.05.2013, he was driving the car on national highway. The car started giving trouble upon which he searched the nearest authorised service station and went to the service station i.e. OP-2. OP-2 replaced the battery with new Exide battery bearing type DIN-60 for a sum of Rs.7,566/- though MRPon the battery was Rs.6,378/- for Maharashtra and Rs.6,243/- for rest of India inclusive of all taxes. The OP-2 did not accept the MRP but forced him to pay Rs.7,566/-. The charging of price beyond MRP is unfair trade practice. The car again started giving trouble on the same day and he took the car to another workshop at Sector-8, Rohini. The mechanic after inspection told that there was no fault in the battery as there is fault in alternator. The replacing of battery by OP-2 is not only deficiency in service but also breach of trust. A legal notice dated 21.06.2013 was sent to the OPs but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 has filed the reply with the averments that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as cause of action has taken place at Sonipat, Haryana. The complaint is barred by limitation as same is filed beyond the period of two years from the purchase of car i.e. 07.04.2013. There is no cause of action against OP-1 to file the complaint. The relationship with OP-2 is on Principal to Principal basis. The liability of OP-2 is limited to warranty obligations and any omission or commission on the part of dealer cannot be fastened on OP-2. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-1 and complaint against OP-1 is not maintainable.

3. The OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as cause of action has taken place at Sonipat, Haryana. OP-2 is the authorised service station of OP-1. The price of the battery was charged as per MRP. The rate w.e.f. 10.02.2013 was Rs.6588.96/- excluding VAT of Rs.865.13/- besides Rs.100/- as labour charges so complainant was asked to pay Rs.7,566/-. There is no overcharging. The service engineer found the problem in the battery and thereafter battery was replaced as it was of 2000 model. The allegations are denied.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1 to CW1/6.

7. The OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Sh. Manish Kumar, in evidencewherein he has corroborated the version of the written statement.

8. OP-2 did not file the evidence. OP-2 did not put his appearance. On 07.01.2016, OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte.

9. We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-2 as no one appeared on behalf of OP-1 and perused the entire material on record.

10. The entire material on the record shows that OP-1 is manufacturer of the Hyundai cars including Model Accent. OP-2 is authorised service station of OP-1. The complainant is owner of the car bearing registration no.DL4CM1178 as clear from RC Ex.CW1/1.

11. The complainant was driving his car on the National Highway. There was trouble in the car as a result he took the car to the service station of OP-2. The car was checked and battery was replaced. The replacement of battery is admitted by OP-2 in the written statement.

12. The affidavit filed by the complainant shows that MRP of the battery was Rs.6243/- inclusive of all the taxes whereas OP-2 has charges a sum of Rs.7566/- including taxes and labour charge of Rs.100/-.

13. The WS filed by the OP-2 shows that the price of the battery w.e.f. 10.02.2013 was Rs.6588.96/- exclusive of taxes.

14. The OP-2 has not filed any evidence to show that prices were revised or price on 10.02.2013 was Rs.6588.96/-. The OP-2 has not led any evidence so the version that price was revised w.e.f. 10.02.2013 cannot be accepted.

15. The WS filed by OP-2 nowhere contradicts the version of complainant that price of Rs.6,378/- for Maharashtra and price of Rs.6243/- for rest of the India was not printed on the box of the battery. It means that the price of the battery of Rs.6243/- was printed on the box of the battery for rest of the India except Maharashtra. There is no price list after 10.02.2013 on record. The price list was to be placed on record by the OP-2 which was not done. The withholding of best possible evidence by OP-2 calls for an adverse inference against the OP-2. The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebuttedto this effect and there is nothing on the record to view the evidence led by the complainant with the aid of spectacles.
16. The complainant has submitted in the affidavit filed in the evidence that there was fault in the alternator and not in the battery. This part of the evidence cannot be relied upon as complainant has not placed on record any report of the workshop to support the allegations.

17. The plea is taken by OPs that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. This plea is without any merits as the office of OP-1 is situated at Jasola which was under the jurisdiction of Police Station, SaritaVihar, New Delhi at the time of filing of the complaint. This Commission has jurisdiction over PS, SaritaVihar, New Delhi so this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

18. The cause of action will arise from the date of replacement of the battery not from the date of purchase of car so complaint has been filed within the period of limitation.

19. The complainant has failed to bring any material on record to show any deficiency of service on the part of OP-1 as lis is between complainant and OP-2 for the overcharging of the price of the battery for which OP-1 cannot be held liable.

20. In view of our aforesaid discussion, it is clear that OP-2 has sold the battery beyond the maximum retail price printed on the battery which is not only deficiency of service but also amounts to unfair trade practice.

21. In view of said discussion, the complaint of the complainant against OP-1 is dismissed.

22. The complaint is allowed against OP-2. The OP-2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,323/- along with an interest @7% p.a. from the date of legal notice i.e.21.06.2013 till its realization. The complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The OP-2 is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 24.09.2024.