IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.193/2011 (Filed on 15.09.2011)
Between:
T.T. Joseph, aged 64,
Nedumthanathu House,
Thottamon Muri,
Ranni Village, Ranni Taluk,
Pathanamthitta – 689 672.
(By Adv. M/s. Alex &
Joseph Associates) ….. Complainant
And:
1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,
A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial-
Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi – 110 044, Rep. by its,
Managing Director.
(By Adv. G. Jayakumar)
2. MGF Motors Ltd.,
MGF Buildings, M.C. Road,
Pulimood Junction,
Kottayam – 686 001.
3. MGF Motors Ltd.,
Opp. St. Thomas Higher Secondary School,
Poyyanil Building, Kozhencherry Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist – 689 641.
(Adv. D. Radhakrishnan Nair
Counsels for opp. 2 and 3) ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant had purchased a Hyundai i 10 Magna Motor Car on 17.12.2008 for an amount of Rs. 3,87,339/- manufactured by the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party through whom the complainant purchased the motor car. 3rd opposite party is the branch of the 2nd opposite party. Complainant had promptly done the periodical services of his car which is done by 3rd opposite party. On 15.08.2011 complainant was unable to start his vehicle all on a sudden. Complainant contacted the 3rd opposite party and informed about the complaint. A mechanic of the 3rd opposite party arrived and checked the vehicle and he could not find out any specific reason for the trouble. However he managed to start the vehicle and recommended a thorough check-up at the service station if the trouble persists. On 19.08.2011 the complainant’s car again developed the mechanical snag. Complainant was unable to start his car which was parked at Mamukku Junction, Ranni. Complainant immediately contacted the 3rd opposite party. The mechanic from the 3rd opposite party came and took the vehicle to the service station at Kozhencherry for thorough check-up. On 24.08.2011 service engineer of the 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that the car developed mechanical snag due to the malfunctioning of its electronic control unit (ECU). According to the complainant, ECU is a very costly part of the car. Malfunctioning of ECU within a short period is due to its manufacturing defect and low quality. It is quite contrary to the assurance given by the 1st opposite party. The ECU of the complainant’s car did not render optimum performance. In the circumstances, the complainant sent e.mail to the service manager, Chennai regarding the malfunctioning of a costly part of his car within short period from the date of purchase. The complaint preferred by the complainant was assigned ID No.1 48276201 from the Regional Office of the 1st opposite party. Complainant requested the 1st opposite party to replace the defective ECU of his car free of costs. But the 1st opposite party refused the request by saying that the warranty period had expired. Hence the complainant was constrained to pay Rs.28,846/- for replacing the defective ECU of his car. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of the price of the ECU along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of the case with 12% interest from the opposite parties.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. 1st opposite party filed separate version and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed joint version.
4. 1st opposite party’s version is that the car was delivered to the complainant on 17.12.2008 in perfect running condition as any new car without any technical or mechanical defect. Complainant’s car was reported at the workshop of 3rd opposite party on 26.08.2011 with concern for engine starting problem. After proper inspection and examination it was observed by the service engineer that ECU of the vehicle in question was not working due to external factors and not because of any manufacturing defect. The damages caused in the vehicle in question was due to the external factors which are beyond the purview of warranty, and repairs/replacement of the parts have to be carried out on chargeable basis. The same was explained to the complainant. After obtaining approval from the complainant the said part was replaced under chargeable basis. The warranty of the said car expired on 16.12.2010. The malfunctioning of the ECU is not due to manufacturing defect and low quality. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the ECU, the car would not have run satisfactorily for a period of 3 years. The excessive moisture attaching accessories into the engines electrical harness, splicing wires into the engines wiring harness to run other devices etc. may cause ECU failure and cannot be termed as a manufacturing defect. The warranty policy is a part of the owner’s manual and is known every owner and prospective purchaser. With the above contentions, 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed version with the following main contentions. According to them, the suit is filed on experimental basis for extracting money illegally from the opposite parties. The car was purchased by the complainant on 17.12.2008. As per the warranty policy of the manufacturer the warranty shall exist for a period of 24 months from the date of delivery to the purchaser irrespective of the kilometer covers. Complainant registered the complaint only on 15.08.2011 i.e. after the expiry of 2 years and 8 months. Complainant purchased the vehicle after accepting the Hyundai warranty policy. Moreover 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are only the dealers and so far no complaint was raised by the complainant against them. With the above contentions, opposite parties 2 and 3 also prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 and A2. After closure of evidence 1st opposite party filed argument note and both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- The complainant’s case is that his Hyundai i 10 Magna Motor Car manufactured by the 1st opposite party purchased from the 2nd opposite party developed mechanical problem due to the malfunctioning of its Electronic Control Unit. The ECU malfunctioned due to its manufacturing defect and low quality within 24045 kms. Complainant requested the 1st opposite party to replace the defective ECU of his car free of cost. But they refused the same by saying that the warranty period had expired. Hence the complainant was constrained to pay Rs.28,846/- for replacing the defective ECU of his car. The above said acts of the opposite parties caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the receipt No. 1307 dated 26.08.2011 for Rs. 10,000/- received from the complainant by the 3rd opposite party. Ext.A2 is the receipt No.1373 dated 01.09.2011 for Rs.18,846/- received from the complainant by the 3rd opposite party. Application for ascertaining the defects of the ECU was allowed and send it to the experts suggested by the parties. But it was not materialized due to want of necessary machines and equipments as reported by the expert.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the complainant. According to them, the said car was delivered to the complainant on 17.12.2008 in perfect running condition without any mechanical defect. If there was any manufacturing defect in the ECU of the car, the said car would not have run satisfactorily for a period of about 3 years and covered an extensive mileage of 24045 km. till 26.08.2011. After proper inspection and examination, it was observed by the 3rd opposite party that ECU of the vehicle in question was not working due to external factors and not because of any manufacturing defect, which are beyond the purview of warranty. The same was informed to the complainant. After obtaining approval from complainant, the said part was replaced under chargeable basis. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.
11. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, Legal Assistant Manager of the 1st opposite party filed chief affidavit in lieu of his examination. But they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in this favour. But opposite parties cross-examined PW1.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found the following facts. According to the complainant, ECU of the car malfunctioned while in a short span of period due to its manufacturing defect or due to its low quality. On the other hand, opposite parties contention is that the alleged fault of the ECU was not due to any manufacturing defect and it might have been due to some external factors or due to the use of the car against the instruction in the users manual. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the sale of the vehicle or the malfunctioning of the ECU.
13. Even though there is no technical evidence both parties admit that the ECU kept in the Forum is defective. Regarding a vehicle ECU is an important part. The malfunctioning of an important part which costs Rs.28,846/- within this time and within 24000 km. is due to its manufacturing defect or due to its low quality.
14. The contention of the opposite parties is that the alleged malfunction was caused due to the use of the car by the complainant against the instructions in the users manual or due to the insertion of any extra fittings or due to any external problems. The complainant’s particular case is that he alone had used the car as per the users manual and he had not fitted any extra fittings or his car never met with any accident and he serviced his car only at the workshop of the authorized service centre. This shows that the malfunctioning of the ECU is not due to any of the acts of the complainant. The expected life of an ECU is not proved by the opposite parties or they have not adduced any evidence for substantiating their contentions that the alleged malfunctioning was occurred due to the acts of the complainant. They also had not made any attempt to check the complaint and rectify the defect, if any, of the ECU. What they have done is that they have straight away replaced the ECU with a brand new one and charged the complainant for the same. This observation is also in view of the complaint reported on 15.08.2013 and the technicians managed to start the car. If the 1st complaint was due to any basic problems of the ECU the car would not have been started at that time. So we are of the view that the complaints of the ECU was minor which can be rectified easily. Hence we feel that the said immediate actions of the opposite parties without thinking of giving an help to the complainant, is an unfair trade practice which put the complainant to financial loss and mental agony. Therefore, we find that opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to the complainant and hence this complaint is allowable.
15. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the 3rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.28,846/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Eight hundred and Forty Six only) the price of the ECU as per Ext.A1 and A2 with 10% interest from the date of filing of this complaint along with compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount herein above with 12% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
16. However, the 3rd opposite party is at liberty to realize the amount ordered herein above, after complying above order, from the opposite parties if they desires so, as they are the manufacturers and sellers of the car in question.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of October, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : T.T. Joseph
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Receipt No. 1307 dated 26.08.2011 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by the 3rd
opposite party to the complainant.
A2 : Receipt No.1373 dated 01.09.2011 for Rs.18,846/- issued by the 3rd
opposite party to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) T.T. Joseph, Nedumthanathu House, Thottamon Muri,
Ranni Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta – 689 672.
(2) Managing Director, Hyundai Motor India Ltd., A-30, Mohan
Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi – 110 044.
(3) MGF Motors Ltd., MGF Buildings, M.C. Road,
Pulimood Junction, Kottayam – 686 001.
(4) MGF Motors Ltd., Opp. St. Thomas Higher Secondary School,
Poyyanil Building, Kozhencherry Village, Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist – 689 641.
(5) The Stock File.
