Delhi

StateCommission

FA/115/2014

AMARJEET SINGH JUNEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:29.01.2019

 

First Appeal-115/2014

 (Arising out of the order dated 16.12.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 868/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (X), Udyog Sadan, New Delhi)

 

Amarjeet Singh Juneja,

S/o Sh. R.S. Juneja,

R/o 49A, Pkt A, Dilshad Garden,

Delhi-110095.

 

…..Appellant

 

Versus

1.       Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

Hyundai Motor Plaza,

A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.

 

2.       Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

          Irrungattukottai,

          NH-4, Sriperunmbudur Taluk,

          Kancheepuram District,

          Tamilnadu-602105.

.….Respondents

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (X), Udyog Sadan, New Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.868/2009 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed and respondent/OP is directed as under:

“As a result of the above discussion, we hold the respondents to be guilty of deficiency to the limited extent (as observed above) and dispose of the complaint with a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (totalling Rs.15,000/-) within one month of the receipt of this order.”

 

2.       The facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

A complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum stating therein that he had booked a Hyundai new car model Verna (manufactured by respondent-2 herein i.e. OP-2 before the District Forum) on 19.7.09 and delivery was given on 24.7.09. It was alleged that after driving about 10 k.m., appellant/complainant found that speedometer was not functioning and was showing a reading of 80 k.m. Appellant/complainant went back to the showroom where the speedometer cable was re-plugged by respondent-1/OP-1. It was alleged that when appellant/complainant had taken the vehicle for its service at service centre of respondent-1/OP-1, it was noticed that the dickey and bonnet were not painted from inside and were seemed to have been repainted upper portions as in the case of accidental jobs.  It was alleged that paint was also different from the model piece shown and displayed at the showroom. It was alleged that alignment of dickey was found to be out resulting in some scratches on the body of car.  It was alleged that even alignment of the driver side gate was also out.  Appellant/complainant had tried to lodge a complaint with Customer Care Cell but was not treated properly. The dickey of car had manufacturing defect and problem was not rectified.  Appellant/complainant had sent a complaint through e-mail and also sent reminders.  Subsequently he got a communication from the respondent-1/OP-1 that all the jobs would be done within the purview of warranty as mentioned in the owner’s manual.  Appellant/complainant insisted for replacement of vehicle but the representative of respondent-1/OP-1 offered to get the vehicle repaired from their workshop only to which appellant/complainant did not agree.  A legal notice was also sent but no response was given.  Thereafter aforesaid complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions to respondent-1/OP-1 to replace the car and to pay Rs.1 lac towards compensation with litigation fee of Rs.10,000/-.

 

3.       A joint written statement was filed by the respondents/OPs wherein the case of the complainant was controverted. It was denied that the speedometer of the car was defective and that old repainted car was sold to him.  According to respondents/OPs, a brand new car was sold to appellant/complainant.  As per respondents/OPs, the dickey and bonnet of every car are painted only with primer and no glossy paint is applied inside the car and in order to satisfy the customer, the respondents/OPs agreed to repaint the same as per the desire of appellant/complainant.  It was alleged that the speedometer was also not defective and only its wire was loose which led to its non-functioning.  It was also alleged that the allegations of dickey and bonnet were made for the first time after two months of delivery of car, when appellant/complainant had come for its first service on 25.9.09. It was alleged that by then car had already run 1083 k.m. It was alleged that a frivolous complaint was filed.

 

4.       Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, Ld. District Forum held that there was no expert’s evidence or any other cogent evidence about the allegations of any       manufacturing or inherent defect in the car. With regard to alleged variation of paint of dickey and bonnet, Ld. District Forum noted that as per stand of respondents/OPs they were liable only to the extent of repair or replacement of any defective part as per warranty clause and not for replacement of vehicle itself. Ld. District Forum also observed that after noticing some variation in the paint, the appellant/complainant must have got disappointed and he had also to bring the car back to the workshop where the cable was re-plugged and it was set right. In these circumstances, District Forum also held respondents/OPs deficient to limited extent and disposed of the complaint with directions to respondents/OPs to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to appellant/complainant and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

5.       Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.

 

6.       Ld. Counsel for appellant/complainant has contended that the compensation awarded is inadequate, insufficient and improper as compared to sufferings, pain and agony inflicted on the appellant.  It is contended that District Forum failed to appreciate that the compensation awarded is not proportionate to the loss suffered by the appellant/complainant.  It is contended that speedometer was not working properly and dickey and bonnet were not painted from inside.  The alignment of dickey was out resulting in some scratches on body.  The alignment of the driver gate was also out. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation ought to have been awarded on higher side.       

 

7.       None has appeared on behalf of respondents/OPs at the time of arguments. Respondents/OPs have filed reply to the appeal wherein it is stated that no manufacturing or inherent defect in the car has been proved in as much as no expert evidence or any other cogent evidence has been produced by the appellants/complainants.  It is stated that even there was no defect in the speedometer.  Speedometer cable of the car was loose which led to non-functioning and the same was re-plugged. It is further stated that paint of the dickey or bonnet is always different from inside and only primer is applied and no glossy paint is applied and the vehicle was in perfect condition and frivolous appeal is filed and the same is liable to be dismissed.

   

8.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for appellant as well as gone through the reply filed by respondents/OPs and other material on record. 

 

9.       The first grievance of the appellant/complainant was about speedometer which he had noticed on the day of its purchase of car. The material on record shows that the speedometer cable was loose which was re-plugged and thereafter appellant/complainant never pointed out any defect in the speedometer. Since the cable of speedometer was loose, it cannot said to be an inherent defect as is alleged. As regards the allegation that dickey and bonnet were not painted properly from inside, the stand of respondents/OPs is that the dickey and bonnet are not painted with glossy paint from inside and are only painted with the primer.  In order to satisfy the appellant/complainant, Relations Manager of respondents/OPs had sent the following e-mail to him:

“At the onset we regret any inconvenience caused.  Kindly note that all jobs would be done within the purview of warranty as mentioned in the Owners Manual.  All necessary components related to your specific concern would be inspected and should any component require adjustment/painting then that specific job would be done. Also be assured that your car would be handed over to you in a satisfactory condition.

 

We request you to kindly advice us at to when it would be possible for you to send your car to the Hyundai Motor Plaza workshop, or we can have it picked up as per your convenience.”

 

10.     By the aforesaid e-mail, it was informed to appellant/complainant that the car would be inspected and if any adjustment/painting was required, the same would be done within the purview of warrantee of the car.  There is nothing on record that after the aforesaid letter, appellant/complainant had taken the car to respondents/OPs. Rather a legal notice was sent by appellant/complainant to respondents/OPs insisting for replacement of vehicle. The alleged variation in the paint does not mean that old car is sold. Had it been so, appellant/complainant would have pointed at the earliest whereas he has informed respondents/OPs for the first time only after 2 months of purchase when he had gone for the service of car. Further it is stand of respondents/OPs that dickey and bonnet are not painted with glossy paint inside. Nothing contrary is shown by appellant/complainant. It has also come on record that respondent/OPs had agreed to repaint the dickey and the bonnet of car to remove all apprehensions from the appellant’s mind as a goodwill gesture warranty free of cost. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances and material on record, we find that appropriate compensation has been awarded to the appellant/complainant. We find no reason to enhance the same.

 

11.     We have also examined the contention of appellant/complainant wherein it is contended that during the pendency of Complaint Case i.e. on 15.4.11 when the car was taken for service, staff of service station drove the car negligently and rear bumper was damaged in the manner to thwart the evidence. The material on record does not support the stand of appellant/complainant. There is a report to SHO, P.S. Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi on record which shows that matter was settled with the person having allegedly hit the car. It has also come on record that appellant/complainant was also sitting in the car at that time. Nothing has been reported by him to Police or to respondents/OPs in this regard. The allegations are afterthought. The same can’t be taken as a ground to enhance the compensation.

 

12.     Accordingly appeal stands dismissed.

 

13.     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information.  The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.  Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.   

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

                                                                                                                                                                                                         President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member