CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/743/14

          Date of Institution:-    21.11.2014

          Order Reserved on:- 19.04.2024

                   Date of Decision:-19.09.2024    

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sunil Bam

S/o Shri D Bam

R/o House No. H-503, RanjitVihar -2,

Plot No. 16, Sector -23,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110077

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Techno Hyundai

K-1/26, Main Rajapuri Road,

Rajapuri Sector -5,

Dwarka, New Delhi – 110059

2. Hyundai Motor India Limited
3.  

Corporate One (Baani Building)

Plot No.5 Commercial Centre

Jasola, New Delhi

…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has taken the test drive of a car of which engine was powerful so he decided to buy the car of same model. He came to know about the fraud when he took the delivery of the car as the purchased car was not even near the car of which test drive was taken. He came to know that OP-2 has launched car with two engines one of 994CC and other of 814CC in the same model of Eon. On 27.05.2014 at 10.21AM he has called upon OP-1 to enquire about Eon-Delite+ car. The test drive was taken and Mr.ArunGoyal, the sales representative, has explained the features of the car to him. The sales representative did not bring the model of Delite+ car which he wanted to buy. The sales representative told that the car is without power window and stereo but the engine power pick up and overall experience of the test drive in the same as that of delite+ model. The total cost of the car is Rs.3,56,000/-. The exchange offer of his old Santro car was given. The value of his old car was assessed at Rs.71,500/- by a surveyor of OP-1. On 01.06.2014, the car was booked. On 28.06.2014, the final payment was given. On 04.07.2014, he took the delivery of the car but it was difficult for him for drive the car as he has decided to buy delite+ car after paying the full price of the car. He called Sh. ArunGoyal i.e. Sales person and Sh. Varun, Service manager and told him that the engine of test drive was more superior in terms of engine power and pick up than the car purchased by him. He came to know after his own investigation that OP-1 has fraudulently send the car with higher engine power and this fact was concealed from him. He had told that his choice of car is delite+ car which should have the same engine power and pick up as that of last drive car. The test drive car was having 994CC engine but it was told during test drive is that engine is of 814CC. He was cheated as he was made to drive the car which was more powerful engine and told that delite+ car will have same engine though they knew that delite+ have a less powerful engine.The actual conversation has taken place with the officials of OP-1. The conversation is annexed with the complaint. He has even sent a letter to CEO of
   OP-2 about the incident.He has been cheated by OP-1 as the car of test drive was having powerful engine but the car sold to him was having low power engine. On 08.08.2014, he has even lodged DD No.78B at Police Station. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 has filed the reply to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. The complainant was aware of the model he wanted to purchase. The complainant after satisfying himself has purchased Eon Delite 814CC on 27.05.2014. The complainant has approached for the test drive. The test drive was taken on car bearing Registration No.DL8CAF0676 814CC. The complainant was satisfied with the performance of the car so he opted to purchase Eon Delite 814CC. The complainant has even signed test drive feedback form. The complainant has also signed quality rating form after the purchase of the car.  The allegations of misrepresentation and providing a different car from the test drive car are false and frivolous. The test drive car is having the same engine i.e. 814CC. The OP can verify the facts from the registration number of the test drive car. The complainant is making false accusation to put undue pressure on the OPs. There is no claim which can be recovered from the OP. The test drive of the car with 814CC engine was taken which is of the same engine capacity as purchased by the complainant. There is no merit in the allegations.

3. OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that relationship with OP-1 is on Principal to Principal basis and any error or omission at the time of retailing or service of the car is that of dealer. The liability of OP-2 is limited to warranty/obligations. There is no allegation regarding the performance of the car being manufactured by OP-2. The dispute is interse complainant and OP-1. OP-2 has no role to play so name of OP-2 be deleted. The complainant after due verification and satisfaction has taken delivery of the vehicle. There is no privity of contract with the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable against OP-2.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

5. The parties are directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed his own evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1 to CW1/7.

7. The OP-1has filed the affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.RW1/1 to RW1/3.

8. The OP-2 has filed the affidavit of Sh. Manish Kumar, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the written statement.

9. We have heardLd. Counsel for OP-2 as no one has turned up on behalf of the complainant and OP-1 to address the arguments and perused the entire material on record.
10. The material on the record shows that complainant has taken the test drive of Eon Delite Model of Hyundai car. The allegation of the complainant is that the test drive car was having powerful engine of 994CC but the sales representative told that the engine is not 814CC. He was satisfied with the test drive and performance of the car so he decided to buy the car like that of test drive car. The sales representative told that he will not get power window, stereo but delite+ model will have the same engine and same power.

11. The evidence led by the OP shows that the car purchased by the complainant is like that of the test drive car bearing registration no.DL8CAF0696. The features of the test drive car and that purchased by the complainant are the same. There was no misrepresentation or misleading statement from the sales representative to the complainant.

12. The OP-1 has filed the test drive feedback form annexure-2 (Exhibit is not put on the document) which shows that registration number of the car is DL8CAF0696. The complainant could have taken the details of registration certificate of this car from the Registering Authority to show that car was of 994CC and not that 814CC. The complainant could have moved an application in the Commission to call for the registration details of the car in order to see the capacity of the engine which he did not do. In the absence of any such evidence on record, the evidence led by the complainant has to be believed that test drivecar bearing registration no.DL8CAF0696 was of 814CC.

13. The complainant has purchased the car Hyundai Eon which comes in different variants. The different variants of Eon car were available in 2014 when complainant has purchased the car in question. There was one model Hyundai Eon 1 litre Kappa which was with capacity of 998CC engine. There is a difference between delite+ model and Kappa model. The booklet is given at the time of the purchase of the car which shows the features of the car. The complainant could have easily checked the feature of the car from the booklet or even from the internet instead of relying upon the alleged information given by the sales representative. The complainant did not check the details even after booking of the car on 01.06.2014 till the date of delivery of the car about the features of the car, the price of which is Rs.3,56,000/-. The complainant himself is negligent in selecting the variant of the car and has shiftedthe blame on the sales representative of OP-1.

14. The allegations of fraud and cheating needs detailed evidence and such facts cannot be determined in summary proceedings.

15. There is no allegation of deficiency of service against OP-2. The complainant has failed to explain how OP-2 can be made a party when dealing was with OP-1 and there is no allegation about the manufacturing defect in the car.

16. The exchange of emails or conversation with the OP-1 in no way advances the case of the complainant so complainant cannot draw any support out of it.

17. The complainant has failed to bring anything on record that there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs so the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 19.09.2024.