CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/267/18

          Date of Institution:-    18.07.2018

          Order Reserved on:- 21.02.2024

                          Date of Decision:-      29.04.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs.Shabana Khan

W/o Mr.Rahish Ahmad Khan,

A-51, JakirBaghAppartments,

Okhla Road, New Delhi - 110025

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd.
2.  

Corporate One (Bani Building)

Plot No.5, Commercial Centre,

Jasola, New Delhi – 110025

2. M/s Elroy Motors Pvt. Ltd.

A-2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I,

New Delhi - 110020

.…..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 that she is owner of Hyundai i20 Sportz 2013 Model. On 23.04.2018, she gave the car to OP-2 for regular/normal service. The last service was also done by OP-2 and no complaint was reported in the functioning of vehicle at any point of time. On 24.04.2018, OP-2 returned the car after service and raised the bill for spares and labour charges. She has driven the car up to 20-25km i.e.up to DhaulaKuan where the vehicle stopped due to overheat. There was no coolant in the vehicle. The vehicle was taken away by OP-2 on her complaint. On 07.05.2018, OP-2 returned the car with necessary repairs. On 09.05.2018, the car again did not start and OP-2 took the car on her complaint and returned the car on 12.05.2018 after alleged service. The car never runs beyond the speed of 30kmph. On 15.05.2018, she gave the car to OP-2. On 24.05.2018, the OP-2 told her that automatic transmission of the car has to be changed which will cost around Rs.298200/-. The defect in the auto transmission is due to the negligence of OP-2 in servicing the car. A legal notice dated 13.06.2018 was sent to OP-2 but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP-1 has filed the reply with the averments that allegations of the complainant are denied. No allegation is leveled against OP-1. The allegations are against OP-2. There is no cause of action against OP-1. The relationship between the OPs is on Principle to Principle basis. There is no privity of contract with the complainant. No payment was made by the complainant to OP-1 so the replacement of the vehicle does not arise. There is no manufacturing defect or violation of warranty/obligations so OP-1 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in after sales services. The dispute relates to service of the car which is with OP-2. The complaint qua OP-1 is time barred as car was purchased on 10.02.2013 and complaint is filed in 2018. The complaint against OP-1 be dismissed.
3. The OP-2 has filed the written statement to the effect that the complainant has concocted a story of deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. OP-2 is not responsible for manufacturing defect as car is manufactured by OP-1. The representative of the complainant has not asked for any specialized work towards the gear/engine/body of the car. The job work is done as desired by the owner of the car and service as demanded by the complainant was given. The heating of the car was due to shortage of coolant which may leak due to various reasons. The problem regarding auto transmission was brought to the notice of complainant as it relates to gear system of the car and not to the coolant. OP-2 has filled the coolant as it good gesture and removed the other defects and even waive off the charges of Rs.35073/-. The service engineer even went to house of the complainant to start the car. The car was brought to the service station as a result of good behavior and complainant was informed thereafter about auto transmission problem. The complainant has not paid any charges till today to complete the work and she is kept delaying the work on one pretext to other. The allegations against the OP-2are false and frivolous.
4. The complainant has filed her rejoinder wherein she has denied the averments of the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
6. The complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complainant and placed reliance on the documentsEx.A to H.
7. The OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Sh. VarunPanta, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OP-1/1 & 2.
8. The OP-2has filed the affidavit of Sh.ManojPathak,in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OP1/1 to 5.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as no one has turned up on behalf of the OPs to address the arguments and perused the entire material on record.
10. It is clear from the material on record that on 23.04.2018 the complainant has given the car for service to OP-2. The OP-2 has duly serviced the car as apparent from Ex.A (Colly) and Ex.OPW1/2.
11. The car has allegedly only covered 20-25 kms up to DhaulaKuan where the car stopped due to overheat as there was no coolant in the car as a result car was given for service to OP-2 for necessary repair. The OP-2 has done the service as required which is apparent from Ex.B as well as OPW1/2.
12. The car did not start on 09.05.2018 and given to OP-2 for service. The car was duly serviced and returned to complainant on 12.05.2018 which is apparent from Ex.C.
13. The car did not pick up the speed and thereafter it was sent to service station on 15.05.2018 with the complaint of running repairs and poor pick up which is apparent from Ex.D as well as OP1/2. The necessary repair was done and car was returned to the complainant.
14. The perusal of the job sheets show that OP-2 was to periodic maintenance of the car. The standard periodic maintenance service includes replacement or top up of engine oil, complete vehicle checks, replacement of air filter/oil filter/AC filter/breach checkup and service as required.
15. The standard periodic maintenance does not include the top up/replacement of coolant or transmission fluid etc. The overheating of car was due to leakage of coolant which cannot be attributed to negligence on the part of OP-2 in servicing the car as replacement of coolant never comes in the category of standard periodic maintenance or complainant has never complaint for the replacement of coolant.
16. The OP-2 has brought to the notice of the complainant that there is problem in the auto transmission of the car. The most common transmission issues relates to the leaking of seals. The vehicle transmission is low on fluid due tofailed seals which causes a leakage. The loss of liquid effects the internal components of the car which do not work properly. The wearing parts include clutch plates, bands, bearing, sealing rings and other metal parts and these get worn out due to friction.
17. The internal components of the car failed to work properly due to loss of fluid. The car has been to workshop number of times. The OP-2 should have thoroughly checked the car. The OP-2 should have told the complainant to go for comprehensive checkup of the car in order to rule out the problem of coming time and again to the service station or to avoid repeated repairs. OP-2 has not properly checked the car when the car was brought time and again to service station for services.The OP-2 was negligent in completely checking the car or to see whether there is any leakage in the seals or not as leakage is visible on the opening of the engine for service. The improperservice of the car on the part of the OP-2 has in a way resulted in damage of auto transmission of the car. The OP-2 can be held liable for deficiency in service of the car.
18. OP-1is manufacturer of the car. There is no manufacturing defect in the car. There is no allegation against OP-1. The complainant has only given legal notice to the OP-1. The complainant has failed to bring on record any material to show how there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP-1.
19. In view of our discussion, we find that there was negligence on the part of OP-2 in servicing the car and noticing the defect when the car was brought to service station for services time and again. The negligence tantamount to deficiency in service which damages the auto transmission system of the car.
20. Hence, in view of our discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP-2 shall deliver the vehicle after carrying out the necessary repairs free of cost. The complainant has undergone mental agony so complainant is also entitled for compensation on this score also. The OP-2 shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation charges. The OP-2 shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which complainant is entitled for interest @7% p.a. on compensation from the date of order till its realization.

• 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 29.04.2024.