Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1010/2012

Mithlesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motor - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-1010/12
 

Ms. Mithlesh Gupta

w/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta

R/o H.No.A-940, Block-A

Gharoli Dairy Farm, Delhi-110096                         

Complainant

Vs

1. Hyundai Motor India Limited

Corporate Office-5^th & 6^th Floor,

Plot No.5, Commerical Centre, Jasola,

New Delhi-110076

 

2. M/s Sunrise Hyundai

Sunrise Autoworld Pvt. Ltd.

Sunrise Complex, Plot No.2, I.P. Extn.,

Near Mother Dairy Plant, Opp. Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092

 

3. Capital Hynadai

D-48, Sector-63, Opp. Forties Hospital,

NOIDA-201301                  

 

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                  DATE OF ADMISSION-04/01/2013    

                                                                                 DATE OF ORDER         -16/09/2015

 

ORDER

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased a vehicle/Hyundai i10 Magna, which was registered as DL7C-L-3557 on 31/12/2010.  There was a problem with the pickup and it was causing fluctuation/variation in speed of the Engine, which is normally called missing. He kept driving the vehicle in the belief that it may pickup gradually but it did not improve even after covering 35,392 K.Ms. On 13/07/2012 he took the vehicle for the service but it started giving the same problem. Complainant met the respondent No.3 but they took it lightly when the complaint in the car was existing. On 30/07/2012, again the vehicle was taken to the workshop for  removal of defect of missing and low pickup, but it could not be rectified. The complainant is facing problems because of the defect in the vehicle. The complainant has claimed for the replacement of the Car with the new Car or refund of the price of the Car, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.22,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Respondent No.1 filed their reply wherein it has been alleged that the Car was delivered on 05/01/2011, in perfect running condition without any technical defect. Every time this vehicle was taken to the OP. No.1, prompt and efficient service was provided. Complainant has failed to disclose true fact of the two accidents which it met on 07/01/2011 and 15/11/2011. The replacement sought is based on frivolous allegations. As per the order of Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court when there is no technical defects the replacement relief cannot be granted. The fact of taking this vehicle to service center after covering more than 35000 K.ms is admitted to the complainant. It has already covered 42055 K.ms within the period of two years. In these circumstances the complaint has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed.

            Both the parties have filed on record their evidence in the form of affidavit job sheets history of the service and repair of this Car has also been filed from the side of the respondent No.2.

            Heard and perused the record.

            The Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the vehicle in question was suffering from inherent defect of Engine which was not functioning smoothly and causing missing in the speed. Problem could not be rectified in spite the vehicle being taken to the respondent’s service centre respondent No.2 & 3 from time to time. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that this vehicle was sold on 05/01/2011 and there was no complaint in the vehicle regarding the missing of Engine. The first service was done on 12/01/2011 after covering of 167 K.ms. This was an accidental repair; the bumper was hit by the driver of the vehicle. On 28/07/2011 a free service was provided there was no complaint on that date record about knocking in the Engine or missing in the Engine. On 03/05/2011 the mileage covered by the Car is 10028 K.ms, on this date too there was no complaint regarding the knocking or missing in the Engine. The owner demanded AC check, noise in the door and noise from the rear side. On 15/11/2011 the vehicle has covered 20,152 K.ms, on this date, the complaint regarding the misfiring in the Engine was first reported that is to say about 10 month after the purchase of this vehicle. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that had it been manufacturing defect then this vehicle could not have done 20,000 K.ms without any problem.  In these circumstances the allegation of the complainant that it is a case of the manufacturing defect cannot accepted. The Ld. Counsel of the respondent submitted that he made repeated complaint in this regard. On 08/12/2011, he again took this vehicle to the OP. No.3 and complaint about raise of RPM of the Engine. It is contended by the OP that the rise of RPM and the misfiring of the Engine are two different phenomena. The missing in the engine may occur due to bad quality of the fuel if there is mixing in the petrol of any other solvent that may cause misfiring. The rise of RPM may be because of the injectors. On 17/04/2012, the mileage was 30,430 K.ms and again missing check was required. This history revealed that the vehicle was used very extensively and within one year, it has covered approximately 30,000K.ms. The complainant cannot bring on record any expert opinion to show that the occurrence of the missing problem after covering more than 20,000 K.ms from the first time may be associated with the manufacturing defect in the Engine. We find substance in the Ld. Counsel submission but the fact of the matter is that this problem after 20,000 K.ms was reported on several occasions. The recurrences even after the repair shows that the Engineers at respondent No.2 are not taking proper care as required. We direct the respondents to repair the vehicle properly. After examining the vehicle if it is found that there is a problem with the engine which causing missing then the same shall be rectified free of cost.  The vehicle is not suffering any manufacturing defect. As such the main relief sought by the petitioner can not allowed.

            In these circumstances there shall be no order as to compensation or to the cost of litigation.

 

 

      (SUBHASH GUPTA)                      (POONAM MALHOTRA)                           (N.A.ZAIDI)

                MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT