Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/208/2022

RAJNESH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.208/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri. Rajnesh Jain S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Jain R/o: H.No. E-16/26, Pocket-16, Sector-8, Rohini, New Delhi- 110085	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 2nd, 5th & 6th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasola New Delhi 110025   Charu Motors Private Ltd., (Authorized Dealer of Hyundai Motors India Ltd.) B-5, Badli Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near Badli Metro Station Main Bawana Road, Delhi-110042	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

17.03.2018 13.01.2023 14.03.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 19.05.2016 he purchased one Hyundai Creta Car from authorized dealer namely Hans Hyundai which has been now taken up by the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Charu Motors Pvt. Ltd. The said car has been manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Hyundai Motors. After one year of the purchase of the said car the tyres of the car were found to be damaged because of manufacturing defect. Then the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 2 and he was told that the Complainant should contact the Opposite Party No. 1. As per the case of the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party 2 replaced front two tyres of the car and he was assured that the other two tyres will be changed later on. However, the remaining two tyres were not changed by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 2,84,000/- on account of mental harassment, litigation charges and cost of the tyres.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case. The Opposite Party No. 2  proceeded against ex-parte vide order date 14.08.2019. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed its written statement.  It is the case of Opposite Party No. 1 that it has no liability whatsoever as the car was sold by M/s Hans Hyundai and the liability of Opposite Party No. 1 is limited only to the performance of the car. It is stated that the Complainant has not produced any proof regarding the manufacturing defects of the tyres. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Party No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Parties

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Varun Panta, S/o O.P. Panta presently discharging duties as Assistant Manager-Legal & Compliance of Opposite Party No. 1, Plot No. 1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu-602117 presently at Delhi. In his affidavit, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a Hyundai Creta car on 19.05.2016. After one year, the tyres were damaged due to manufacturing defect. The Opposite Party No. 1 has denied the assertion of the Complainant and has alleged that the Complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the tyres were having some manufacturing defect.
6. The question which is to be decided is that whether the tyres of the car of the Complainant were having any manufacturing defect. Apart from his affidavit, the Complainant has not filed any evidence or report of any expert to show that there was manufacturing defects in the tyres of the car. As per the case of the Complainant, the said defect accord after one year of the purchase of the car. The Complainant has not specified the distance in kilometers which was done by the car during the one year. He has filed the complaint in year 2018 and even in the complaint he has not mentioned the distance covered by the said tyres. It is well settled law i.e the onus to prove the manufacturing defect is upon the Complainant. In the present case, the Complainant has failed to discharge its onus. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence it is not proved that there was any manufacturing defect in the tyres of the car. The complaint is dismissed.
7. Order announced on 14.03.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President