DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 42  of   2023

 

Sri Samir Roy,

S/O- Late Santosh Roy,

Office Tilla, Khowai,

P.O. Khowai Court , P.S. Khowai,

District- Khowai Tripura, 

Pin- 799202. ..................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Hyundai  Motor India Limited,

 

2. Panna Hyundai,

 

3. Mr. Arghadeep Acharjee,

Customer Care Manager, Panna Hyundai,

 

4. Mr. Dipankar Bhowmik,

 

 

 

 

 _______PRESENT_______

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For  the  O.PNo. 1 : Sri Rajib Saha,

For the O.P. No.2, 

3 & 4 : Sri Richard Sinha,

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:   15.04.2024.

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Sri Samir Roy here-in-after called the complainant purchased a Hyundai Car on 04.02.2022 taking loan from State Bank of India and for that matter the complainant paid Rs.1,44,314/- to the O.P. No.2 and the rest amount Rs.6,30,000/- was paid by the State Bank of India directly to O.P. No.2. The car was registered vide registration No- TR 06 C 0413.

1.1 After 4/5 months the car after running 7000 km developed abnormal sound in the engine and particularly engine started knocking. As such the complainant contacted the workshop of O.P. No.2 along with the car on 19.07.2022 at the time of first servicing of the car. The authorized service engineer updated the software system of the car.

1.2 But after running 100 km the same problem reappeared. Hence on 28.07.2022 the complainant visited the workshop of O.P. No.2. This time spark  plug and cable assy were replaced and the O.P. No.2 illegally charged Rs.1510/-. But on 16.08.2022 i.e., less than a month the complainant found problem reappeared. Hence, the car was again given service but after running 73 kms the same problem reappeared. As such on 17.08.2022 the complainant again visited the shop of O.P. No.2 and requested proper service. This time the O.P. No.3 again took custody of the car and by opening a job card dated 17.08.2022 assured the complainant that engine of the car will be thoroughly checked thereafter the O.Ps informed the complainant that on 26.08.2022  the car will be delivered. Ultimately the car was delivered on 26.09.2022 but without any solution. Again problem cropped up hence, on 07.11.2022 vehicle was taken by the O.P. No.2 and estimated date of delivery will be informed on 12.11.2022. On 22.11.2022 the complainant contacted the customer care of O.P. No.1 and informed detailed  history of defects of the car. But the O.P. No.1 did not respond.  Another Email was sent on 27.11.2022 which was replied on 29.11.2022 by one Priyankar Datta authorized Representative of O.P. No.1. Priyankar Datta informed that Zonal Technical Coordinator had checked the vehicle and identified the problem and advised to change the piston rings along with valve. Ultimately the vehicle was delivered on 28.12.2022  by issuing one invoice but still to no good as the engine did not stop peculiar sound including  knocking of engine releasing quite smoke from the silencer and something more. 

1.3 Being contacted on 01.01.2023 the O.P. No.3 over telephone, the O.P. No.3 instead of solution aggressively behaved with the complainant. As such on 16.01.2023 the complainant served legal Notice alleging manufacturing defects. But the Notice was not replied. 1.4 Hence, this case claiming return of the price of the car  with interest, compensation and other reliefs. 

 

2. The complainant has annexed all the invoices including the cash memo etc. 

 

3. The O.P. No.3 in written objection denied and disputed the allegations of the complainant and stated that the statements at Para–6 & 7 of the complaint i.e., knocking of engine, visiting of the workshop of O.P. No.2 on 28.07.2022 are partly correct and also stated that the statement in pursuance to Para 8 & 9 of the complaint that his vehicle was repaired and also admitted in Para -9 of the written objection that on 07.11.2022 the complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre and the O.P. No.1 employed the technical manager for repairing.

3.1 The O.P. No.1 in written objection did not deny the allegations of the complainant and alleged that the concern dealer i.e., the O.P. No.2 is solely responsible for any defect in the vehicle. For resolution of customer alleged defect road tests of the vehicle was done and no defects were found and the relationship between the dealer i.e., O.P. No.2 to 4 with O.P. No.1 is on principle to principle basis but not principle to agent. As such the O.P. No. 1 can not be held responsible for any act or omissions of the dealer.

4. Both the parties filed documents  and evidence on affidavit.

  

5. Hearing argument the following point emerged for discussion and decision:-

 

6. From the pleadings of both the parties and evidence it is found that it is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No.2 and the documents submitted by the complainant  particularly job cards dated 16.08.2022, 17.08.2022, 07.11.2022, 22.11.2022 and the copy of Email dated 22.11.2022 & 27.11.2022, invoice dated 28.12.2022 it clearly established the case that the O.Ps although tried to resolve the defects in the engine of the vehicle on different dates but could not repair the defect. As such the argument of Learned Counsel of the O.P. that an expert is required to be appointed to examine the vehicle does not appeal to us. The series of defects in the engine of the vehicle manifestly prove mechanical defect of the vehicle.

6.1 On the first occasion the electronic controlling unit of the vehicle was repaired, 2nd time repaired the spark plug and cable assy, next piston rings were repaired but on no occasion the defects of the vehicle could repaired by the O.Ps. Whatever may be the relationship between the O.Ps i.e., whether principle-to-principle or whether principle-to-agent the customer is not supposed to suffer for that and main responsibility lies with the O.P. No.2 from whom the car was purchased by the complainant and O.P. No.1, the Managing Director of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. 

6.2 Hence, the complainant has clearly established the case of deficiency in goods and services as well as we have arrived at a firmed conclusion on the basis of materials on record that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which the O.P. No.2 and 1 are jointly and severally liable. 

7. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

8. In the result, it is directed that the O.P. No.1 and 2 shall return the sum of Rs.7,74,300/- i.e., the price of the vehicle to the complainant with interest @ 7.25% from the date of purchase i.e., 04.02.2022 and take delivery of the vehicle on such payment within one month from today. The O.Ps shall also pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for such deficiency in service and goods as well.   

8.1 In alternative the O.P. No.1 & 2 shall take back the vehicle in question and shall deliver a new one of the same model/ new version of the same model, within one month from today.

9. The case stands disposed of.

10. Supply copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.   

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.