D.O.F:29/04/2015
D.O.O:04/03/2020
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.109/2015
Dated this, the 04th day of March 2020
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Dr.K.P. Venugopala Prabhu
S/o Late K.G Padmanabha Prabhu,
Kalappura Kovilakam : Complainant
Sringapuram, Kodungallur, Thrissur Dt.
Pin – 680663
(Adv: C.H.Vishnu Bhat)
And
- Hyundai Motors India
Engineering Pvt. Ltd
Registered Office Opposite Hi- Tech city
Railway station,Ijjatnagar R.R.District
Hyderabad -500084
- Hyundai Motores India
Engineering Private Ltd
South Regional Office N.P.54
Development Plot, Thiru Vika Industrial Estate
Ekkaduthangal Guindy, Chennai, 600032 : Opposite Parties
(Adv: P. Fazil OP 1&2)
- APCO Vehicles (India) Pvt. Ltd, India Nagar,
P.O Ltd, India Nagar, P.O Chengala Kasaragod 671541
(Adv:K. Shahzad, & Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
- M/s.K.T.C Automobiles (P) Ltd,
N.H.17, Kannothumchal, p.O. Chovva, Kannur
Pin – 670006
(Adv: Balagopalan)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The Complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act:-
Facts of the case in brief is as follows
Complainant purchased a Hundai I-20 model car, later registered with number KL-47 B 1693, by exhausting his old car of the same company. He opted the vehicle believing the promises of quality, performance warranty and service. Car did not show any problem till it completed one lakh kilometer. During first week of November 2013, vehicle fell in a gutter, suffered engine oil leakage. Vehicle is taken to Opposite Party No: 3, major repairs done by paying Rs.45039/- on 09/11/2013. Opposite Party No:3 promised guarantee of service. Vehicle while running suddenly stopped and all attempts to start failed. Vehicle is taken to Opposite Party No:4 as advised. Service staff dismantled its engine. While dismantling its engine, connecting rod is broken, and replied that for over hauling of engine Rs. 1,00,000/- is required. By the time vehicle run only 2274kilometers after major serve. Complainant sent lawyer notice on 22/01/2014 and 16/08/2014. Vehicle is not delivered back, still complaints not resolved. Complainant claims Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation with interest and costs for delay in repair and deficiency in service of vehicle by Opposite Parties.
Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 filed their written version. They denied the allegations of deficiency in service manufacturing defects, or denial of warranty benefits and prayed for dismissal of complaint against them. Since vehicle met with an accident service/repair will be on payment. Vehicle don’t suffer any manufacturing defect. If at all reliefs claimed is against Opposite Party No: 3 and 4 alone and complaint against Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 may be dismissed.
Opposite Party No: 3 filed written version. They also denied claiming no deficiency in service. Vehicle brought by driver of complainant reporting accident and for repair of engine oil leak. No work is done relating to engine rod. Vehicle missed periodical service, vehicle with five accidents during three year period. First accident repair on 28/09/2011 second time on 11/02/2013, third time on 02/03/2013, fourth time on 05/09/2013 and fifth time on 29/10/2013. Reply notice dated 20/09/2014 was sent, there is no short coming on their part and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite Party No: 4 filed their written version. Vehicle is kept in their premises without any order to complete the repairs nor it is being remand and vehicle continues to be parked there at the risk of complainant causing loss to Opposite Party No: 4 other allegations are denied.
Complainant filed IA 384/2015 directing Opposite Party No: 4 to produce tax card and RC of the vehicle for which Opposite Party No: 4 filed affidavit stating that they are not in custody of those documents.
Complainant filed chief affidavit through power of attorney who is cross examined as Pw1. The documents Ext A1 to A8 are marked. Ext A1 is registered notice, Ext A2 to A4 are its postal acknowledgment cards, Ext A5 is notice to Opposite Party No:4, Ext A6 is the original power of attorney, Ext A7 invoice issued by Opposite Party No: 3 dated 09/11/2013 , Ext A8 is in the reply notice by Opposite Party No:3.
Opposite Party No:3 filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Dw1, produced the documents Viz copy of reply notice and its postal acknowledgement and marked as Ext B1 and B2.
In view of averments is complaint, contentions raised is written version, evidence adduced following points arise for considerations.
- Whether vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect and whether any damage to vehicle by accident caused by falling in to gutter is to be repaired by the dealer or manufacturer at their cost or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Parties in not repairing/servicing of defects into vehicle and if so as to what reliefs?
In this case Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 are the manufactures of the car Opposite Party No:3 and 4 are its authorized dealers and the complainant purchased the car from the authorized dealer and if any manufacturing defects are occurred in the car, then the manufacturer and dealers are jointly and severally responsible for the defect in the product . Complainant purchased the car from the authorized dealer. Therefore complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties.
From the documents and evidence made available it is proved that the vehicle met with an accident on 29/11/2013 and vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No: 4. In the chief affidavit the complainant says that he reasonably suspects defects in the service by Opposite Party No: 3 and possibility of manufacturing defect cannot be ruled out. Affidavit further shows that Opposite Party No: 1 and 4 are bound to carry out repair free of charges.
No steps are taken by complainant to show nature of damages suffered to the vehicle by accident or otherwise. There is no detail regarding parts damaged. Expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect. As such no evidence is available as to the condition of vehicle on keeping it with Opposite Party No: 4. Complainant did not care even to obtain a job card or any evidence from Opposite Party No:4 in keeping vehicle with it but as if vehicle is kept in Opposite Party No: 4 premises at the risk of complainant. So absolutely no evidence is made available to show that vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. Complainant duly suspects manufacturing defect and not quite sure about it. Therefore point No:1 is answered against complainant for want of legal and acceptable evidence.
Looking to the averments in complaint and documents and evidence it is evident that car suffered damages by accident falling in to a gutter not attributing any reason by manufacturing defect after completing one lakh kilometer thereby suffering damage to the vehicle is not due to any defect in service or repairing and there is no deficiency in the service of Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties contend that repair or service is not done or started because complainant did not instruct them to complete the repair work. Since he demands completion of repair/replacement if any parts if any free of charge. When a vehicle meets with accident suffers damages, complainant is entitled to claim insurance benefits and not by way of free of charges and thus work is not done to justifiable reasons.
Further complainant has no definite case as to what are the deficiency in service of Opposite Parties in the case. As per evidence vehicle suffered accident five times in three years, repaired and no complaint till date. Ext A5 and when accident is caused it should be reported to service centre, insurance claim to be made if having valid insurance. Otherwise pay the repair charges and get back the vehicle. But complainant kept his vehicle with Opposite Party No: 4 without instruction to proceed but insists repair free of charge. Complainant is entitled to sell the car if so advised and appropriate thereof. There is absolutely no basis of the claim. Denial of service/repair without any agreement to pay the charges will not come under any deficiency in service or negligence and this complainant is not entitled the compensation accordingly. The complainant cannot be awarded with compensation for his own wrongs and if any financial burden has occurred on him, it is just because of his own negligence and for that Opposite Parties are not liable.
Hence the Opposite Party No: 4 is under a duty to provide service to the vehicle at the earliest on payment of charges. Considering the difficulties and inconveniences of the an owner of car having not able to enjoy its comfort for a considerable period of time. Opposite Party No: 4 is directed to inform complainant in writing as to estimated cost of repairs including parts if any within one month from date of receipt of the order, and in case complainant agrees to pay the same repair the vehicle and deliver the some to complainant on receiving the charges thereof within one month from the receipt of letter from Opposite Party No: 4 to complainant as above.
In case complainant is not agreeable to pay the charge, Opposite Party No: 4 is at liberty to proceed as per law.
Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for reasons aforesaid but without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Registered Notice
A2 to A4 – Postal Acknowledgment
A5- Letter Dt. 22/01/2014
A6- Power of Attorney
A7- Tax Invoice
A8- Letter Dt 20/09/2014
B1- Letter Dt: 20/9/2014
Witness Examined
Pw1- SadhashivaPrabhu K.P
Dw1- Jeneesh Stanly.E
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
