Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/17

Dev Dutt Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors (I) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

Sh. Dev Dutt

S/o Gopi Chand Chawla

R/o  A-5B/95, Paschim Vihar

New Delhi-110063

Phone No. 9953199765                                                …. Complainant

 

                                                                             VERSUS

1. M/sHyundai Motor India Limited,5^th & 6^th Floor, Corporate On,

(Baani Building) Plot No. 5,

Commercial Centre, Jasola,

New Delhi-110025

• Phone – 66022000

 

 

2. M/s Hans Hyundai

A Unit of Charu Motors

69/1A, Near Moti Nagar Crossing

Najafgarh Road Moti Nagar

New Delhi-110015…….Opposite Party No.2

 

3. M/s Deep Hyundai Service Centre

K.-1 Indl.Area, Udyog Nagar

• Peeragarhi Crossing

Rohtak Road, PeeraGarhi

Delhi-110063…….Opposite Party No.3

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased vehicle bearing RC No. DL-10-CA-5891, Model -2010, from M/s Hans Hyundai Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 on 19.09.2010 with warranty up to three years.  The vehicle was got serviced on 08.08.2012 from OP-3.  After service the problem of engine missing, front wheel  noise problem etc.  started in the vehicle which were growing day by day. The complainant had taken vehicle to OP-3 for more than 15 times to remove the faults stated above but with no solution.  On 21.08.2012 OP changed all Spark Plugs and on 10.09.2012 also changed plug wire,replacedcoil.  Thereafter the complainant visited service center on 14.10.2012 when it replaced Engine head of vehicle.  During the tenure of aforesaidservicethey charged the amount during the tenure of warranty.  It is the grievance of complainant that the manufacturer sold him  a  sub standard defective vehicle and demanded replacement of the vehicle because the defect i.e Engine Missing, Front Wheel Noise and other problems subsisted all the time.

2. All the   OPs   filed written statement almost on the same lines stating that complaint is time- barred. Vehicle was delivered  on 19.09.2010  but the  present complaint was filed after two years  of its purchase also that  alleged  defective vehicle was continuously  used for more than 3 ½  years and by 22.12.2013 had already covered an extensive mileage of 43315 kms.   The complainant has not filed the report of expert  as to the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It  has been further  stated that consumable item such as oil/fluids   changes , filter replenishment, wheel balancing, wheel alignment , tyre rotation,  minor  adjustment , engine tuning, replacement of parts from part of normal  wear and tear of the vehicle and also spark plug, belts, brake pads, clutch disc, wiper bales, bulbs etc  are not  covered  under warranty .  It is prayed that complaint  being misconceiver be dismissed.  
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in thecomplaint. He has also filed replication to the reply filed by Respondents. On the other hand Mr. Manish Kumar, Assistant Manager, Legal & Secretarial, Hyundai Motors India Ltd.  filed affidavit of evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.           5.        The controversy involved in present case is as to whether the complainant is entitled to the claim relief or not.  Admittedly the vehicle was purchased in September, 2010 and the present complaint was filed in 2014.  The vehicle admittedly has now covered thousands of miles.  Had vehicle  have  any manufacturing defect  it could not have run so much  for so many years, therefore, the replacement or refund of price would not,  in any manner be, proper and justified.  However, record of the case indicates that  the vehicle was taken  to the service center for as many as 15 times  which  caused constant mental agony and  harassment coupled with wastage of  previous time of the complainant for which  he needs to be reasonably compensated.   It is now well settled  law if the vehicle  sometimes after purchase is regularly taken to the workshop for removal of defects  it is per se to tantamount  to deficiency  in service.  This was so held by Hon’ble  National Commission in case  reported in  II(2016)  CPJ 381 (NC) Josi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. Vs Col. S.K. Gawari and Other.
5. Keeping in view the discussion stated above  we are of the opinion that ends of the justice would be met if complainant is awarded  compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced this____22TH__ day of _April ___ 2019.

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                  (PUNEET LAMBA)                  

PRESIDENT                                                     MEMBER