Karnataka
Bijapur
CC/69/2014
Sri Abhinandan S Patil - Complainant(s)
Versus
Hyundai Motors India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
Sri S.R.Patil
06 Aug 2015
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR
DATE OF FILING 01st DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 69/2014
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
01) Sri S.H. Hosalli - President.
B.Com.LLB. (Spl),
02) Smt.V.B. Chiniwal - Lady Member.
B.Com.LLB. (Spl),
03) Smt.G.S. Kalyani - Lady Member.
B.Com.LLB. (Spl),
COMPLAINANT - | 1) | Shri. Abhinandan S/o Shriyansh Patil, Age: 20 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Farm House, At/Po: Zunjurwad, Tq: Athani, Dist. Belgaum.
(Rep by Sri S. R. Patil, Adv.) |
- V/S -
OPPOSITE PARTIES - | 1)
2) | Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluka, Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu-602117.
(Rep by Sri M.S. Khyadi, Adv.)
Narayan Cars Pvt. Ltd., Sy No.7, KASABA,
(Rep by Sri S.V. Kulkarni, Adv.)
|
O R D E R
Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.
1. This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) for get repair the Tablet 7C+ (Edge) Ubislate cum computer device or exchange to it new one or give the same device amount of Rs.4,999/- + Rs.500/- towards the output accessories total of Rs.5,499/- back to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- expenses, further prayed for Rs.50,000/- causing harassment and mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation and expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards legal notice in all Rs.77,499/- to the complainant with 18% interest p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of entire amount. .
2. The facts of the case in brief are that;
The complainant has purchased Tablet 7C+ (Edge) Ubislate cum computer device (IMEI No.911303700816743) from the Op.No.1
The complainant is a farmer and he resides at zunjarwad village of Athani taluka in Belgaum District he is handicap during such condition, complainant decided to purchase a new car for his family. Accordingly, the complainant brought brochures of various cars of different companies finally decided to purchase a brand new Hyundai i20 Magna (O) of 2014 model of Opponent No.1 Company on 13.02.2014, the complainant approached the Hyundai authorized showroom (Op.No.2) at Bijapur and same day purchased Hyundai i20 Magna (O) 2014 model (bearing chassis No.MALBB51RLDM626117) for Rs.6,68,414/- invoice No.230 and in sale certificate month and year of manufacturer is mentioned as January 2014 and accordingly complainant has paid the amount for January 2014 model by raising loan from Sundaram Finance Ltd., in addition to that complainant has paid requisite insurance amount and accordingly complainant collected invoice and sale certificate from Op.No.2 and complainant took delivery of the car believing that the car is 2014 model.
Accordingly the complainant approached RTO Chikkodi for Registration of Car and paid road tax of Rs.1,08.115/- but RTO chikkodi refuse to register the car on the ground that, the Manufacture date mentioned in the sale certificate is not matching with real manufacture date according to chassis No. and further RTO chikkodi informed complainant that the car is manufactured in the year 2013, hence, RTO asked to bring explanatory letter from show room and withheld the Registration. It was very shocking to the complainant because, complainant has purchased the car believing that it is 2014 model. But Opponent No.2 has wrongly delivered the 2013 old model car thought complainant paid price amount for 2014 model car.
After this event many time complainant called sales manager of Op.No.2 Mr. Dixit but he has not responded properly. Thereafter many times complainant approached Op.No.2 but they have not responded properly. Under the above circumstances having no any alternatives complainant finally approached Hyundai customer service (Op.No.1) on 25.04.2014. The complainant Registered First complaint bearing Ref.No.01/761825868, thereafter complainant many times called Hyundai Customer Service for status enquiry but every time replied enquiry is in progress and they will solve problem, with the same answer due to this Act of Ops. The complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony and hence he has prayed for allow the complaint with compensatory costs.
3. Both the Ops have put in their appearance through the Counsel and strongly opposed the claim of the complaint by filing their written version of Op.No.1 & 2 as under;
3 (A). The Op.No.1 has contending that, the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious. But it is fact that H.M.I. deals with all its dealers on a “Principal to Principal” basis wherein the concerned dealer is wholly responsible for any error/omission/misrepresentation at the time of retail sale/service/repairs of the car.
The Op.No.1 has further stated that, manufacturer of vehicle has no role. It is also important to mention that the car is purchased by the concerned dealers such as other Op.No.2. Thereafter the purchased car has sold by the dealer to the customers, under sale invoice. It is pertinent to mention that the
“ Title of the Hyundai Vehicle ” passes on to the concerned dealer. It is further submitted that answering Opposite party has no role in registration of the vehicle.
In view of the submission as aforesaid, it is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to relief sought in the prayer clause of the complaint. As far as the answering Op.No.1 is concerned, which is misconceived frivolous, wrong and deserves to be dismissed with costs.
3 (B). The Op.No.2 filing his written version wherein he has totally denied the allegation made by the complainant, he further admitted that delivery of the said vehicle on 13.02.2014 for Rs.6,68,414/- said vehicle through over-sighted typographical mistake the concerned staff of this Opponent has typed the model of said vehicle as January 2014 instead of December 2013 in the sale certificate.
The Op.No.2 further admitted that Opponent has given delivery of said vehicle 2013 model on 13.02.2014 by getting temporary Registration of said vehicle for one month which was valid upto 13.03.2014 and thereafter it was the duty of complainant to get permanent Registration of said vehicle within stipulated time.
Further admitted that in para No.8 Objection of the Opponent has kept ready the corrected certificate and in-fact he had contacted the concerned RTO who has stated of himself having No Objection to get the said vehicle registered. Thus, looking from any angle the complaint of the complainant is un-sustainable both in-fact and law and same be dismissed with compensatory costs.
4. Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case, 10 documents produced on behalf of complainant are marked as Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-10 as under;
01. Sale Certificate dtd: 13.02.2014 (EX.C-1).
02. Tax Invoice dtd: 13.02.2014 (Ex.C-2).
03. Temporary Certificate Registration dtd: 13.02.2014 (Ex.C-3).
04. Form No.24 (Ex.C-4).
05. R.T.O. Chikkodi (Ex.C-5).
06. Endorsement by R.,T.O. Chikkodi dtd: 23.05.2014 (Ex.C-6).
07. Notice copy of R.T.O. Chikkodi dtd.11.11.2014 (Ex.C-7)
08. Legal Notice dtd: 06.06.2014 (Ex.C-8).
09. Acknowledgement (Ex.C-9 (a), (b) & (c))
10. Reply Notice Copy dtd: 10.06.2014 (Ex.C-10).
On behalf of Op.No.1 no documents are marked in this case, 8 documents produced on behalf of Op.No.2 are marked as
Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 as under;
01. Pre-delivery Inspection & Warranty Registration Card (Ex.OP-1).
02. Delivery Certificate dtd:13.02.2014 (Ex.OP-2).
03. New Car Delivery Check-list dtd:13.02.2014 (Ex.OP-3).
04. Vehicle Registration process & Undertaking (Ex.OP-4).
05. Offer Confirmation Letter dtd:02.02.2014 (Ex.OP-5).
06. Customer Offer Form dtd: 02.02.2014 (Ex.OP-6).
07. Terms and Condition Sl.No.0406 (Ex.OP-7).
08. Ex. Showroom Price list (Ex.OP-8).
Both side advocates have filed their written arguments. After hearing both sides arguments we have formulated the following points for our consideration;
Whether the Ops have rendered the deficiency
of service to the complainant?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the
relief as is sought for?
What order?
5. Answer to the above Points:-
Affirmative.
Partly Affirmative.
As per final Order.
R E A S O N S :-
6. Point No.1: The oral arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is a repetition of the fact mentioned in the complaint and written arguments and the learned counsel for the Ops have also submitted that, the price of said vehicle in the year 2013 upto March 2014 was one and the same. Hence, the question of Unfair Trade Practice does not arise at all. Moreover, in sale certificate through over-sighted typographical mistake the model has been mentioned as 2014. Therefore, the question of this complaint, the complainant asking 2014 model vehicle does not arise at all.
Coming to the facts of the case, the complainant in order to evidence that he had been to the Op.No.2 showroom at Bijapur and enquired about the availability of Hyundai i20 Magna (O) 2014 model Car, Op.No.2 informed complainant that 2014 model is available in the showroom and ready for delivery on 13.02.2014 on the same day sale certificate issued by Op.No.2 marked as Ex.C-1 on same day temporary Registration Certificate also issued marked as Ex.C-3 that has not been disputed by the Op.No.2. Accordingly, the complainant has paid requisite insurance amount and complainant took delivery of the car believing that the car is 2014 model.
In order to prove that, the contention of the complaint that, the complainant has produced the notarized copy of sale certificate issued by Op.No.2 Temporary Registration Certificate of RTO Bijapur has marked as Ex.C-3 and insurance copy in all the certificate year of manufacture is shown as January-2014 model. On intention to sale old model car the Op.No.2 created false documents and cheated the complainant by doing unfair trade practice and Op.No.2 have supply of old model car in the name of new model car which amounts to un-fair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant produced the endorsement letter of RTO Chikkodi i.e. marked as Ex.C-6 in order to prove that the vehicle is manufacture in the month of December-2013.
That the complainant approached RTO Chikkodi for Registration of car and paid Road Tax of Rs.1,08,115/- marked as Ex.C-5. But RTO Chikkodi refuse to register the car on the ground that, the manufacture date mentioned in the sale Certificate i.e. Ex.C-1 is not matching real manufacture date according to chassis No. and further RTO Chikkodi, informed complainant that car is manufactured in the year 2013. Hence, RTO asked to bring explanatory letter from showroom and withheld the Registration. The complainant paid price amount for 2014 model car, complainant approached the RTO Chikkodi for clarification and complainant went to Op.No.2 and shown the notice of RTO Chikkodi where it is clearly mentioned that car is manufacture in the year 2013. But Op.No.2 again refuses to agree, Op.No.2 informed the complainant that car is manufacture in the year 2013 once car is sold our job over it amounts to unfair trade practice and further Op.No.2 refused to take any kind of responsibility.
The complainant has issued the legal notice dated 06.06.2014 marked as Ex.C-8 to the Ops and called upon the Ops to exchange the vehicle to 2014 model car or make the payment to the complainant along-with interest towards damages and compensation by accepting all the allegation made in the notice. But, the Opponent reply the notice has given false and evasive reply on 07.07.2014 that is marked as Ex.C-8 produced by the complainant. But in the said notice they have mentioned date as 10.06.2014 in first page and 10.06.2012 is on last page and denied the entire allegation made in notice.
The Op.No.2 has not at all ready and willing to state the true facts nor have they given any positive reply. As per Ex.C-1 to
Ex.C-3 clear mentioned the manufacture month and year as January 2014 this itself shows that the Op.No.2 intentionally hiding something to make wrongful gain to themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant.As per Objection of Op.No.2 clearly admitted facts that, para 5 page No. 2 & 3 clearly mention and affidavit of Op.No.2 also mention in page No.2 it is admitted facts that the Acts of the Op.No.2 will amounts to deficiency of service.
As per objection and affidavit of Op.No.2 clearly admitted facts that both one and same i.e. in Objection para No.5 page No.2 & 3 and affidavit of Op.No.2 page No.2 clearly mention that,
“On 13.02.2014 delivery of said vehicle through over-sighted typographical mistake our staff has typed the model of said vehicle as January 2014 instead of December 2013 in the sale Certificate”. It is clearly admitted facts that its amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss.That the vehicle has been manufacture in the year 2013 and the valuation of vehicle will be very low and if the car has been purchased of the year 2013 modal car for that there is discount of upto 20% but the complainant has paid full amount to purchase the 2014 model car, but Op.No.2 has delivered the 2013 model car. Hence, the complainant has caused loss.
The Op.No.1 clearly stated in his objection and affidavit of last para the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to customers under sale invoice as per Ex.C-1 it is pertinent to mention that, the title of the Hyundai vehicle passes on to the concerned dealer at the moment it is put on a common error. It is further submitted that answering Op.No.1 has no role in Registration of the vehicle as per Ex.C-3 and also in his oral argument clearly stated that, H.M.I (Hyundai motor India Ltd.,) deals with all its dealers. On “Principal to Principal” basis wherein the concerned dealer is wholly responsible for any error/omission, the customer and H.M.I does not have any responsibility being manufacture, H.M.I. liability is limited to its warranty obligation. Hence, OP.No.1 has no role in this case, there is direct relation between complainant to dealer i.e. Op.No.2. and have examined the entire material on record and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. On perusal of the material on record as per Ex.C-1 to C-8 the Hon’ble District Forum conclusion that, the entire liability shall be borne by the Op.No.2 only. As per National Commission decision the Op.No.1 manufacturer dismissed this complaint as per the authority.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, III (2015) C.P.J. 16 (NC) Maruti Suzuki India Limited V/s Vijayan V. Anand & Ors.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1) (g), 21 (b) – Motor Vehicle- Registration certificate shows vehicle of model 2004 instead of promised 2005 model – Replacement denied – Alleged deficiency in service – Apportionment of liability – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Responsibility for giving wrong information or documents to complainant lies solely on dealer and only he should be liable to pay necessary compensation – Impugned order become final qua dealer – Petitioner manufacturer not liable in any manner for deficiency towards complainant by dealer – Petitioner manufacturer is not jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
The Op.No.2 has filed in his written objection and entire allegations made in the written statement are false, frivolous and baseless. The District Forum observes the entire allegations are made against Op.No.2 only in which answering the Op.No.1 has no role in this case, there is direct relation between complainant to dealer i.e. Op.No.2.
The learned Counsel for the Op.No.2 during the course of argument submitted the authority. Hence, the above said decisions are not helpful to this complaint.
CPJ part III (2014) page No.564 (NC).
CPJ part III (2014 page No.437 (NC).
As per the above discussions, the version of the counsel for the complainant that, the car in dispute was sold by the Op.No.2 to the complainant in the year 2014 and the complainant had filed the same for 1 ½ years and as such the order of the District Forum for replacement of the car with a new car of 2014 model is not justified.
In the said decision the Hon;ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 2012 (1) C.P.R. page No.279 N.C. between M/s Dada Motors Ltd., V/s. Suresh Kumar.
Wherein it is clearly observe that; supply of old model car in name of new model constitutes deficiency in service.
Perusal of the above said complaint and all the documents, it is proved by complainant and Op.No.2 specifically admitted to his objection and affidavit that, we had informed the complainant about it being a typographical mistake and had asked him to get it corrected till today. The Op.No.2 has not at all ready and willing to state the true facts nor they have given positive reply this itself shows that the Op.No.2 intentionally sale the old model car. Hence, Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
7. Point No.2:- The complainant submit the authority relies on as per above District Forum finally decided that, Op.No.2 was guilty of committing unfair trade practice of selling old model car to the complainant in all fairness, it is Op.No.2 alone who should be made liable to refund the cost of car, on same day present condition return of the car by the complainant to Op.No.2. The complainant has to be compensated by awarding some compensation and in our view that;
In the said decision the Hon;ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 2012 (2) C.P.R. 103 N.C. between J.K. Bansal V/s. M/s. P.S. Cars (P) Ltd., & Others.
Wherein it is clearly observe that; Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(1) (r), 15, 17, 19 and 21-Automobile-Supply of second hand car by dealer-Unfair trade practice-Neither District Forum nor State Commission has come to conclusion that there was any manufacturing defect in vehicle-In absence of any finding regarding manufacturing defect, manufacturer could not be asked to reimburse cost of vehicle-Directions issued by State Commission directing Respondent No.2 to refund cost of car set aside and instead Respondent No.1 directed to refund cost of car to Petitioner on return of car Petitioner to Respondent No.1-For unfair trade practice committed by Respondent amount of Compensation enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-Revision Petition partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
it is just and proper. The Op.No.2 is directed to refund to Road Tax amount of Rs.1,08,115/- to complainant as per Ex.C-5 we are of the view that, the complainant need to be adequately compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, damages and financial loss with Rs.5000/- being the costs of this litigation with this we record our findings and point No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
8. Point No.3; In the result, the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
01. The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.
02. The Op.No.2 is directed to refund the cost of car Rs.6,68,414/- (Six Lacks Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fourteen only) along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of delivery of the car i.e. 13.02.2014 to till complete realization. On the same day present condition of the car i.e. Hyundai i20 Magna (O) 2013 model bearing Chassis No.MALBB51RLDM626117 return by the complainant to Op.No.2.
03. The Op.No.2 is ordered to pay Road Tax of Rs.1,08,115/- as per Ex.C-5 to the Complainant.
04. The Op.No.2 is also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony and damages loss caused to the complainant.
05. The Op.No.2 is ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) being the cost of this litigation to the complainant.
06. The Op.No.1 dismissed this complaint.
07. The Op.No.2 shall comply with this order within two months from the date of this order, failure of which the cost of Car from date of delivery @ 12% p.a. till complete realization.
(This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 06th day of August, 2015).
(Sri S. H. Hosalli,)
President
( Smt. V. B. Chiniwal,)
Lady Member
(Smt. G. S. Kalyani,)
Lady Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.