On call complainant himself appeared but no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party on 15.05.2019 against opposite party no 1 EX Party hearing has been fixed. Records shows that on behalf of opposite party no 2 written statement has been filled which is on record. Therefore, on account of the facts available on record and submission as advanced this case is being disposed of.
Complaint case has been brought by Rejeshwar Prasad, S/o late Vishwanath Prasad, R/o Mohalla 201, jagdevan plaza, Kankarbagh, Patna Bihar against Hyundai Motors Company through its managing director, 5th and 6th floor, corporate one commercial centre jasola New Delhi, Pin Code- 110025. 2. Krrish Motors Pvt. Ltd through its director, Nutan Towers, Main road Kankarbagh, Patna- 20, for the following reliefs
1. To direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the purchased vehicle and other charges paid at the time of purchasing the said vehicle to the complainant along with interest 18% per annum from the date of purchase 13.04.2016 till full and final payment.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 200000/- as a compensation to the complainant for inconvenience, loss harassment and mental tension suffered by him due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and frustration in pursuing the matter with the parties.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay the litigation cost i.e. the amount of Rs. 50000/-.
4. To pass such order/orders as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.
The main case as setup that complainant saw the advertisement of a car of Grand i10 on T.V. thereafter he has made enquiry to opposite party no. 1 and further. Opposite party no. 1 had stated that Krrish automobile is the nearest authorized dealer of the opposite party no. 1. Thereafter it is stated that the sale executive of opposite party no. 2 induced the complainant to purchase Grand i10 as mileage of the said vehicle is 16 to 18kms per liter in a local and about 20kms/liter in long drive and in good faith he has purchased the car Grand i10 on 13.04.2016 after payment of Rs 619732/- (six lacs nineteen thousand seven hundred thirty two) the purchasing receipt is Annexed as Annexure 1. But complainant noticed that as per the specification as advertised the mileage of the said vehicle is not in accordance thereto rather mileage of said vehicle is very slow and in local drive it does not cross limit of 7kms complainant made complain to opposite party no. 1 to remove the defect but he had not taken step and he was directed to approach to opposite party no. 2. Whereupon he approached opposite party no. 2 and the defect was pointed out persisting in the vehicle including the low mileage problem. After complain the technician of opposite party no. 2 made assurance that he will remove the defect whatever it is persisting in the vehicle. The technician of the opposite party no. 2 insured the complainant that the mileage problem shall be removed automatically. Vehicle was brought at authorized service centre for first servicing but there was no change in the mileage opposite party no. 2 had also provided second servicing and tried to remove the defect but there was no improvement in mileage problem. Opposite party no. 2 had instructed the complainant to prepare a chart indicating the mileage and to submit the same in the office. Complainant accordingly prepared chart and submitted the same but thereafter opposite party no. 2 did not pay heed to redress the grievance. The chart specifications are Annexure 2 and 3 and Annexre 1 is the purchasing receipt. Thereafter complainant made contact to opposite party no2 to follow the policy regarding to take back the said Vehicle as he had committed unfair trade practice. But opposite party no. 2 totally ignored the request made by the complainant. It has also been stated that Krrish Automobile sold defective Vehicle to the complainant but did not cooperate with the customer of Hyundai Company and the principle made in advertisement has not at all been followed with the customer.
Further, it appears that on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 W.S. has been filed wherein it has been stated that the complaint petition is not maintainable and it is barred by rule of estoppels and acquiescence. Krrish Motors Pvt Ltd is one of the authorized dealer of Patna of cars manufactured by M/s Hyundai Motors pvt ltd. The complainant had himself prompted to purchase i10 car through an advertisement on television. The decision to purchase of the said model was of the complainant and the complainant never declared that mileage of the car was the one and only condition for purchase of the said model of the car. It is not at all a fact that the complainant had intended to purchase the car only on account of the statement made by sales executive. Rather complainant had himself expressed his satisfaction in course of a local test drive on 07.01.2017. The complainant was delighted with a mileage of 30kms for a consumption of 2.4lt of fuel. Therefore, the grievance of the complainant is baseless. Photocopy of letter dated 07.01.2017 has been annexed as Annexure A. The opposite party has never committed any unfair trade practice. The complainant has not provided any expert opinion in support of his contention. Opposite party never failed in his duty and gave adequate and prompt services to the complainant to his satisfaction. The case of the complainant is unjust, unfair and unreasonable as indicated above.
The main point for consideration in this case is that
- ‘Whether complainant has been able to substantiate his case relating to mileage of the car after the day of purchase by him’.
- ‘Also whether complainant is able to receive the order relating to price of purchase of the car as well as other costs as prayed’. No opposite party other than the opposite party no 2 has filed W.S.
The complainant himself had argued the case and submitted that on behalf of opposite party no one is appearing from many dates. It has further been contented that the complication of mileage started form the day of the purchase. No doubt on complain service was provided by the opposite party but never complain relating to mileage has ever been removed whatever the facts have been brought in the W.S. that has been mentioned to divert the Learned Commission otherwise the Annexure A whereupon the reliance has been placed by the opposite party but same has been filed up by the company itself. Even the signature of the complainant is not there. So far as the remark ‘delighted’ is self composed because complainant had never became delighted after the day of purchase particularly in view of difficulty being faced on account of defect of mileage. Annexure ‘A’ is completely absurd and against the actual state of affairs. The complainant has been suffering from several years from mental pain as well as economic loss and also from the unnecessary litigation.
On behalf of opposite party however no one appeared to argue the case but after going through the record and the facts available we find that opposite party. 2 has however not denied the purchase of vehicle from the Hyundai Motors Pvt Ltd but it has been denied that vehicle has been purchased at the instance of sales executive of the opposite party. 2. It has also been stated in W.S. that complainant has himself desired to purchase i10 car after visiting the entire facts. It has also been stated by the opposite party as indicated above that whatever the services were due and when the car was brought due service is said to have been provided. In W.S. upon annexure ‘A’ opposite party no 2 has relied too much. As discussed here above that complainant in his argument has not relied upon about the mileage and it has been stated that due to low mileage there becomes high rate of fuel consumption and the complainant has been put to loss economically. This car has been purchased on 13.04.2016. Though it has been stated by the complainant that sale executive of the opposite party no. 2 induced the complainant to purchase i10 car and he was informed that mileage of the said vehicle is 16-18kms/liter in a local and about 20kms/liter in long drive purchase receipt has been brought as Annexure 1. Annexure 2 and 3 have been filed on behalf of the complainant which is a prepared chart indicating the mileage. It was prepared while the opposite party instructed the complainant to prepare the chart but the chart does not bear the signature of the complainant himself nor any of the person authorized who was actually verifying the mileage while the vehicle in question was plying on road as if it is believed that the report so prepared and annexed with the complaint petition is true than there must have been proper authentication thereof. The plea taken by the opposite party in the W.S. relating to annexure ‘A’ is concerned we are of the opinion that such annexure shows the signature of the customer then how can it be believed that same has not been signed by the customer on annexure ‘A’ so far as filing of the column available on Annexure ‘A’ relating to gradation is concerned same shows that it was delightful. Complainant during course of argument made emphasis that Annexure ‘A’ is bogus but complainant did not file ever any of the application for appointing of the expert for proper verification and also about the signature whereupon a picture of full reliance would have been brought on record.
Therefore, we do not consider to accept the case of complainant in toto as has been brought before this commission but on the other hand we consider that complainant is on litigating term since 2017 and few of the person in the society runs towards the litigation without any cause. Therefore, we are of the view to appreciate in this manner that complainant would have been in a trouble particularly economically while mileage as per kilometer has not been found proper rather same has been found too low than the required. Thereby the complainant has also suffered from mental agony.
In the result, under the facts as above we consider the economic loss of the complainant after the day of purchase to up to date as he has not stated before the commission that said vehicle has been sold to Rs l25000/-(one lac twenty five thousand only) in respect of excess fuel consumption and other expenses and cost altogether is considered as Rs 50000/-(fifty thousand only). Hence, opposite party is directed to pay the amount 175000/- altogether with interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case same amount shall be paid within 2 months of this order by the opposite party to the complainant through account payee cheque. In case of non-payment complainant is entitled to recover the amount in due course of law
