Haryana

Karnal

250/2011

Tarun Kumar S/o Madan Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sudhakar Mittal

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 250 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt. 03.05.2011

                                                               Date of decision:07.09.2016

 

Tarun Kumar son of Shri Madan Mohan, resident of House no.235/3, Tilak Colony, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., through its M.D., A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110034.

2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (North Regional Office), through its M.D., DLF Towers-B, 3^rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technological Park, Chandigarh-160101.

3. Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd., 119/8, Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal-132001.

4. Hyndai Service, Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.84, Industrial Area, Sector-2, Kurukshetra-136118.

                                                                                 …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Rajnish Pannu Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                     Shri Rajnish Batra Advocate for opposite party no.3.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Hyundai Santro GL E-III Sleek Silver Colour, car bearing chasis no.MALAA51HR9M411991*C and Engine no.G4HG9M734444 on 23.04.2009, from the opposite party no.3. After few days, he realized that there were some problems in the car, like poor pickup, bouncing in speedometer etc. and functioning of the doors. He visited the offices of opposite parties no.3 and 4 several times, but nothing fruitful came out. On 25.05.2009, he visited the office of opposite party no.2 for getting repaired his car, but he had to wait since morning till evening. He talked to Managing Director, but instead of giving the attention to his problems one Lovepreet Singh of Sale Department and one Mr. Rathore from Service Department misbehaved with him and abused him. Thereafter, he agitated the matter with Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Customer Relations via e-mail, but to no effect. On 10.7.2009 he again visited the office of opposite party no.3 for repair work. The concerned mechanic Brajesh took the car for taking a test drive and due to his negligent driving the car collided with a bus and as a result of that the driver side back door of the car was badly damaged and there were scratches on front door. Since there were manufacturing defects in the car and the same was damaged by mechanic of opposite party no.3, he requested the opposite party no.3 to replace the damaged door and remove other manufacturing defects and if the defects were not removed then to replace the car, but the opposite party no.3 out rightly refused to replace the door and only repaired the door by using cheap quality paints and other materials, due to which the new car appeared to be an old one and market value of the same was diminished. On 11.07.2009, he again complained to the Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Customer Relations via e-mail and reply was received on 12.07.2009 assuring him that his problem would be resolved soon. The opposite party no.3 on repeated persuation replaced the damaged door of the car. However, due to defective parts and replaced door, the market value of the new car came down. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.  

                   It has further been alleged that he got served a legal a notice dated 15.7.2009 upon the opposite parties. In reply to the said notice opposite party no.3 admitted the factum of accident caused due to negligence of its employee. However, in the meantime, he had got served another legal notice dated 8.8.2008, but the opposite parties did not admit his claim for replacement of the car, which was having manufacturing defects.

                   It has further been submitted that he filed complaint titled as Tarun Kumar Versus Hyundai Motors before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra, which was disposed off vide order dated 18.11.2010. Thereafter, first appeal no.100 of 2011 filed before Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula was disposed off vide order dated 01.02.2011 and he was directed to file a fresh complaint before this Forum by condoning the period spent by him before District Forum Kurukshetra.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is a gross abuse of process of law and has been filed with malafide intention to gain undue advantage; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the car was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition, without any technical or mechanical defect whatsoever. The defects alleged by the complainant are not manufacturing defects in the car. The concerns of the complainant, like speedometer, needle flickering and poor pickup were all related to routine maintenance services and could under no circumstances be termed as defects. On 25.5.2009 and 28.5.2009, the complainant reported his car with a request to check poor pickup of the car and speedometer flickering. The complainant’s car was thoroughly examined, minor adjustments were carried out, speedometer, cable assembly was replaced under warranty free of cost and the car was delivered to him in perfect running condition. The complainant even signed a satisfactory note after taking the test drive of the car. The pick up of the car depends on a number of factors like road conditions, driving habits, improper tyre pressure, wheel alignment etc. and the same can under no circumstances be termed as defect much less manufacturing defect. It has been further pleaded that the door of the car was replaced with new one and said replacement was done free of costs. Thus, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                Opposite parties no.3 and 4 filed separate joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complaint is a misuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been averred that on 25.5.2009 and 29.05.2009 the complainant visited the Karnal Workshop and he was attended. Similarly, on 13.5.2009 when he visited the Kurukshetra Workshop his car was immediately attended by the opposite party. On 10.7.2009 his car was repaired at Kurukshetra Workshop and he was asked to take the delivery immediately. The complainant neither met the Managing Director nor there was any employee of the opposite party at the workshop allegedly named as Rathore. The mechanic of the opposite parties was well trained, but bus brushed aside the car causing damage. The door of the car was replaced and paint job was done as per the norms of the Hyundai Motors and the paint used was as specified by the Hyundai Motors. The demands and allegations made by the complainant are unreasonable and unacceptable. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Baldev Khetrapal Director Ex.OP3/1, affidavit of Priya Darshan Kumar Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP3/2 and Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had purchased one Hyundai Santro Car from opposite party no.3 on 23.04.2009. It has been alleged that after few days of purchasing the car he realized that there were problems in the car like poor pick up, bouncing in speedometer and in the functioning of the doors. He visited the offices of opposite parties no.3 and 4 several times, but none was willing to entertain his complaint. On 25.5.2009, he visited the office of opposite party no.3 to get the car repaired, he had to wait since morning to evening but nobody listened to his problem and when he talk to the Managing Director, instead of giving his attention to his problem some officials misbehaved with him. He agitated the matter with the Hyundai Motors India Limited Customer Relations via e-mail, but to no effect. It has been alleged that further he again visited the opposite party no.3 for repair work of the car. Barjesh mechanic took the car for test drive and due to negligent driving, the car collided with a bus and as a result of which side back door badly damage with scratch of the front car. Job card of the repair was issued to him. Since there were manufacturing defect in the car from the beginning, the damage due to accident diminish the value of the car. However, after repeated persuation the damage door of the car was replaced, but the manufacturing defects were not removed.

8.                It s worth pointing out at the very outset that the complainant has led no expert evidence to substantiate his allegations that there were manufacturing defects in the car. As per allegations there were problems of pick up, bouncing of the speedometer and in the doors. The copy of job sheet dated 28.05.2009 Ex.OP3 shows that the complainant complained to opposite party no.3 that there were problems of poor pick up and speedometer flickering. Speedometer cable was replaced and problem of pick up was also removed. Test drive was taken by the complainant and he was satisfied with the service provided by the opposite party no.3. In token of satisfaction, he put his signature on the job sheet as well as on separate letter. Complainant has not produced any other job sheet, wherein he complained about poor pick up and flickering of speedometer. He has produced the copies of job sheets dated 10.7.2009, 3.11.2009 and 17.11.2009 Ex.C16 to Ex.C18 respectively, but in none of these job sheets it was mentioned that there were problems of poor pick up and flickering of speedometer in the car of the complainant. The problems of poor pick up and flickering of speedometer could be due to various reasons such as road conditions, driving habits, improper tyres pressure, wheel alignment etc.  Therefore, it cannot be said that those problems were on account of manufacturing defects in the car. Even otherwise, the opposite party no.3 had removed those defects to the satisfaction of the complainant on 28.05.2009. Under such circumstances, the complainant has altogether failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in his car.

9.                Admittedly, the door of the car of the complainant was damaged on account of collision with bus while being driven by one Brajesh Mechanic of opposite party no.3. The complainant had sent e-mail against the dealer on 11.07.2009 as is evident from the copy of Ex.C9 that the dealer was not replacing the door and was just repairing the same. The said e-mail was duly responded by Customer Relations Hyundai Motors India Limited assuring him that the dealer would take necessary action to address his concern. Thereafter, the door was replaced as is clear from the last sentence of para no.6 of the complaint.

10.              It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, that the present complaint stemmed from the fact that on 25.5.2009 when the complainant went to opposite party no.3, he had to wait since morning to evening and nobody listened to him and when he talked to the Managing Director, instead of giving attention to his problem one Lovepreet Singh from Sales Department and one Rathore from Service Department misbehaved with him and abused him. He sent complaint against the Managing Director through e-mail, the copy of which is Ex.C8. The other problem of the complainant was that the door was replaced by opposite party no.3 after making complaint to Customer Relations Hyundai Motors India Limited and sending legal notice. Thus, as per the case of the complainant, he felt humiliated and harassed as the opposite party no.3 did not attend to him properly on 25.5.2009 and did not replace the damaged door immediately on 10.7.2009. A Dealer/Service Centre of the manufacturer is certainly bound to attend to the customers immediately and behave with him in a dignified manner. The complaint made by the complainant indicates otherwise and there is no reason to disbelieve such version of the complainant, which finds supports from e-mails sent by him.

11.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant has failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in his car or that service of the car was not provided by the opposite parties, but it is established that he was not behaved properly by the officials of opposite party no.3 the dealer of opposite party no.1 and the  door damaged while taking test drive of the car by mechanic of opposite party no.3 was replaced after complaint made by him. Thus, the complainant suffered only mental harassment and humiliation which also amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 07.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member