O R D E R
By Smt.Sreeja.S, Member :
Complainant purchased a EON car manufactured by opposite parties 1 to 3 from their dealer 4th opposite party on 26/11/15. The warranty policy of the car stipulate the period of warranty as 24 months from the date of delivery. After two months of purchase it has been noticed that a noise was coming out from gear box while driving the car. So he approached 4th opposite party to fix the issue but they informed that this is the basic default of the model of the car which is uncurable. So he caused a lawyer notice on 28/6/14 demanding replacement of the vehicle or else to return the amount paid with 18% interest. They were not ready to correct the defect of the vehicle or else to return the amount. The act of the opposite party caused high financial and physical agony to the complainant and hence this complaint.
2.1st to 3rd opposite parties filed version as follows: The above complaint is devoid of any merits and the allegation in paragraph 1 to 9 of the complaint are denied so far as the same are inconsistent with the facts. The complainant had purchased a Hyundai Eon car manufactured by the 1st opposite party through the 4th opposite party on 23/12/2015. The car was reported for 1st free service on 12/1/2016 and for 2nd free service on 14/11/2016 and on both the occasions no complaints as alleged by the complainant in the above complaint was reported to the 4th opposite party. In fact an E-mail was send to the complainant by the Dealer wherein it was made clear that pursuant to a joint test drive undertaken by the technical persons along with the complainant on 26/4/2016 no annoying noise from the gear box was heard as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that the car was delivered in a perfect condition and the complainant has not reported anything about the alleged noise from the gear box, when he reported the car for service on 12/1/2016 and 14/11/2016. Apart from this, based on an oral complaint, the car was inspected in the presence of the complainant and no defects whatsoever as alleged by the complainant was noticed in the car. The warranty conditions of the 1st opposite party refers to the replacement of defective part by the authorized dealer and neither does it contemplate replacement of the car nor the refund of the purchase price. The opposite parties 1 to 3 cannot be made liable for any reason whatsoever as alleged in the above complaint. No relief can be granted against opposite parties 1 to 3 and prayed to dismiss the above complaint. The 4th opposite party remained absent and set exparte.
3. Points for consideration are :
1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties or nor?
2) If yes, reliefs and costs
4.From the side of complainant 5 documents produced and marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 Retail Invoice dtd. 26/11/15, Ext.A2 copy of vehicle record sheet, Ext.A3 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 28/4/2016, Ext.A4 postal receipts, Ext.A5A/D card. The report of expert commissioner is marked as Ext.C1.
5.Points:The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Eon car manufactured by 1st opposite party from 4th opposite party. Ext.A1 proves the same. Purchase was also admitted by opposite party. After 2 months of purchase a unwelcoming sound emanated from the gear box which caused annoyance and difficulty to the complainant while driving the car. Several check-up were done by opposite party and they found the same as manufacturing defect of this model of car. 1st to 3rd opposite parties denies the same and states that there is no such sound and quality car has been sold to the complainant. Hence an expert has been appointed and he filed Ext.C1 report. Ext.C1 states during the test drive a unique type of sound were experienced but the same was absent at rest in neutral gear. The sound was not emanating from engine. The sound reported to be emanating from clutch – gear box zone. The probable source of the same from the power transmission system. It has been reported that the most probable cause of the sound will be manufacturing defect. On going through the report it is found that the engine and other vital parts except gear box and clutch do not have any defect. The report is insufficient to suggest a manufacturing defect making the vehicle unusable. Therefore we are of the view that the expert evidence is insufficient to order a replacement of the vehicle on the strength of manufacturing defect. But the evidence categorically prove that the gear box and clutch of the vehicle is defective emanating unusual sound. Even though services were done by the opposite parties they could not fix the problem, which categorically prove the deficiency in service from the opposite parties. Therefore we are inclined to partly allow this complaint with a direction. It is true that the defectiveness of the vehicle caused high mental agony to the complainant and same is to be compensated.
6. In the result complaint is partly allowed and hereby direct 1st to 4th opposite parties to replace entire gear box and clutch system with new one free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing in which 1st to 4th opposite parties shall pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) per day including the day in which same is to be replaced from the date of this order. And further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each to the complainant with 6% interest from the date of order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15th day of February 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja.S C.T.Sabu
Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.A1 Retail Invoice dtd. 26/11/15, Ext.A2 copy of vehicle record sheet, Ext.A3 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 28/4/2016, Ext.A4 postal receipts, Ext.A5A/D card
Ext.C1 – Commission Report
Id/-
Member
