DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 14 of 12-01-2021

Decided on : 25-5-2023

Anguri Lal Bansal, S/o Sh. Kishori Lal Bansal, through Lalit Bansal (Grandson) (Special Power of Attorney Holder) House No.3146, Malwa Workshop, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151005.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., (Through its General Manager). 2^nd and 6^th floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025.

2. Raja Hyundai @ Raja Motors, (through its General Manager), Mansa Road, Harbans Nagar, Nacchatar Nagar, Bathinda 151001.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. N.K. Tundwal, Advocate for OP No.1

Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate, for OP No.2.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

1. The complainant Anguri Lal Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Hyundai Motor India Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Hyundai Grand i10 car from opposite party No.2 on 18.01.2017 vide invoice No. H201600583 for Rs.7,05,000/-. The said car was insured from 18.01.2017 to 17.01.2018 and was financed by Punjab National Bank for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The car is insured after the regular intervals and at present, the car is insured upto 17.01.2021 with United India Insurance Company Limited.

3. It is alleged that this car was purchased from opposite party No.2 on assurance that the car is of good brand and has good response from the market and that there is warranty of two years or upto mileage of 1,00,000 Kms of engine of new car and in case of defects, those will be removed free of costs or will be replaced.

4. It is alleged that after the expiry of warranty of car on 17/01/2019, the same was got extended by complainant on 17/01/2019 for a period of two years i.e upto 20/01/2021 or upto the mileage of 1,00,000 Kms, but now the opposite party No.2 has refused to extend the warranty to 5^th year.

5. It is further alleged that on 15.01.2020, complainant faced some problem with engine and there was a problem in acceleration. At that time the mileage of the car was 70921 Kms. It was got checked from opposite party No. 2 and an amount of Rs.7250/- was paid on account of regular service and engine repair. On 14/03/2020 car was not moving more than the speed of 20-30 kms/hr, and at time, mileage of the car was 75937 kms. The opposite party No. 2 after inspecting the condition of car found that the wiring of the car was damaged. The complainant gave consent to change the wiring and asked for the alternative car for his usage till the repaire of his car, but the same was ignored by opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 2 told the complaiant that the wiring set was not available and the same would be coming from Korea. The Complainant did not get any notification from opposite party No.2 that when the car will be delivered to them after repair despite the fact that complainant is a senior citizen and running a medical shop which is being an essential commodity in Covid 19. On 13/06/2020 the complainant made a complaint to customer care through telephone regarding delivery of repaired car and on 14/06/2020, he received a call that his car was ready. The bill of Rs. 52,849/ was paid by complainant through NEFT, but the same was got recovered by claiming insurance.

6. It is also alleged that on 16/06/2020 i.e. just two days after he got his car repaired, he again went to opposite party No. 2 for the proper repair of car as there was some problem in the car . The opposite party No. 2 through its engineer conveyed that engine was having defects and engine needs to be replaced which will cost around Rs 2-3 Lacs. The complainant claimed that car is under warranty till 17/01/2021 and the mileage of the car at that time was 76062 kms and the engine should be replaced by the opposite parties but the engineer said they can only repair the engine of car. The car was retained by opposite party No.2 for repair. Feeling aggrieved, complainant made a complaint to customer care regarding harassment being suffered by him since March 2020 through email on 02/07/2020 reply of which was not received. On 06/07/2020 the complainant again made a reminder to customer care and thereafter a call has been received by the complainant on 7/07/2020 to the effect that a courtesy car Xcent( Regd No. P303 AS 7788) will be provided to him till the repaire of his car. The car of the complainant was repaired on 25/07/2020 and partial bill amount of Rs. 3639/- was charged from the complainant.

7. The complainant also alleged that on 17/08/2020 he faced again some problem with car and took to opposite party No.2 on 18/08/2020. At that time the mileage of the car was 78166 kms. The car was repaired delivered to complainant on 20/08/2020 and Rs.3970/- were charged. On 10/11/2020 the complainant visited opposite party No.2 (at that time the mileage of the car was 88914 kms) for the scheduled service during which the engineer claimed that the chain system of engine was damaged, which was got repaired and Rs. 7750/- were paid. On 07/12/2020 the complainant faced again some problem with car and took it to opposite party No.2 on 07/12/2020. At that time the mileage of the car was 92512 kms. The car was repaired and delivered to complainant on 08/12/2020 after charging Rs. 3768/-. Further on 30/12/2020, complainant faced some problem with the car and at that time the mileage of the car was around 95000 kms. The car was repaired (on account of engine problem) by company and delivered on 30/12/2020. On 05/01/2021 the complainant faced again some problem with car and his grand-son Lalit Bansal took to opposite party No.2 on 05/01/2021. At that time the mileage of the car was around 96725 kms. The representative of the opposite party No.2 claimed that the engine was damaged again and needs to be repaired. The complainant alleged that since the car was continuously giving problem, he demanded replacement of engine from opposite party No.2 which was declined by them. The complainant's Grandson - Lalit Bansal also asked for the courtesy car for the time being till the repair of the car of complainant and after much arguments they provided the Santro car which was in very poor condition.

8. It is also alleged that feeling aggrieved from the behaviour of opposite party No. 2, complainant had a talk with General Sales Manager of Hyundai 'Company and he also did not solve the problem and the whole incident turned into an heated arguments between complainant's grand son Lalit Bansal and staff of opposite party No.2 for such a poor service.

9. It is further alleged that engine of the car of the complainant is damaged and need to be replaced as soon as possible. The complainant is facing mental harassment since March 2020. The opposite party No.2 has denied to replace the engine after several requests and complaints to the customer care. The complainant has also prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of inconvenience, mental harassment and mental agony caused to him by the opposite parties in addition to Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses and besides deposit of Rs.60,000/- in the consumer Legal Aid Account by the opposite parties. The complainant also prayed for directions to the opposite parties to provide courtesy car to him till the repair of his car.

10. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.

11. It has been pleaded that the complainant had concealed the material fact that he had reported his vehicle 4 times for accidental repairs on 17,371 Kms, 24/07/2019 59,055 Kms, 17/10/2019 64,715 Kms, 14/03/2020 75,937 Kms. The complainant had failed to maintain the vehicle as per the service schedule. As per the service schedule, vehicle had to be serviced at every 10,000 Kms which the complainant had failed to do so in the present case. Further, service schedule had clearly been mentioned in the Owner Manual. Service record of the complainant detailed as below:

12. It has been pleaded that in the owner manual, it has been clearly mentioned that it is the owner's responsibility to maintain the car and also to keep the maintenance record of the vehicle in order to validate the warrantee. The liability of opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer of Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its performance and warranty obligations only that also as per warranty policy. Since, complainant had failed to keep proper maintenance and had reported his car for accidental repairs, thus damages of the same are not covered under the opposite party No.1 warranty policy as warranty shall not cover any damages or failure resulting from negligence of proper maintenance and misuse, abuse, accident, theft, flooding or fire. Since, complainant had failed to maintain his vehicle and car was reported for accidental repairs, the same is out of the preview of opposite party No.1 warranty policy. The opposite party No. 1 has also pleaded that service schedule are given so that periodic maintenance should be carried out in order 'to avoid any damage to the parts. The complainant had failed to get the vehicle serviced periodically which resulted in facing of such issue in addition to the damage caused by the accidents. Further, as a gesture of Goodwill even when the claim of the claimant was not maintainable, required parts were changed even when the coverage of the same was void. Had there been any manufacturing defect or had the parts been defective, then the car would not had covered such an extensive mileage.

13. It has been further pleaded that complainant has failed to prove his claim of defect by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of expert report from any appropriate laboratory. The opposite party No.1 operates with all its dealers including opposite party No.2 on principal to principal basis and not on pricipal to agent basis thereby meaning that error/omission/ misrepresentations etc, if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer, is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. The cars are purchased by the concerned dealers such as opposite party No.2 and others, from opposite party No.1 against payment and thereafter, the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers under reatil invoice and that the “title of Hyundai vehicle” passes on to the concerned dealer, the moment it is put on a common carrier.

14. It has been also pleaded that no money from the sale consideration of the vehicle was paid to the opposite party No.1. Complainant in Para 2 of the complaint has himself stated that he had paid money for the purchase of the car to opposite party No.2. Since no money has been paid to opposite party No.1, thus it cannot be held liable for refunding the same.

15. On merits, it has been pleaded that as per available record, complainant had not maintained his vehicle as per service schedule. In failure to maintain the vehicle as per the service schedule, the warranty of the vehicle will get void and further renewal of the warranty can be denied. The work of the car of the complainant was being carried out on Goodwill basis, whereas the claim of the complainant was not maintainable as complainant had faced these issues due to accidental repairs (front side) and further complainant had failed to maintain the vehicle as per the service schedule. Thus, in warranty policy, it is clearly mentioned that any damage due to accidental loss shall not covered under warranty and also non-maintenance of the vehicle would also void the warranty. Thus, complainant had faced the issues due to his own willful default and accidents and not due to any act or omission or part of opposite party No.1, hence there is no unfair trade practice by opposite party No.1 rather complainant is liable due to misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. In further part of the reply on merits, the opposite party No. 1 has reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

16. The opposite party No.2 has filed separate witten reply raising legal objections that complaint in question has been filed through Power of Attorney Sh. Lalit Bansal but the said Special Power of Attorney has not been validity or legally executed as per rules and thus liable to be discarded. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question whereas the opposite party No.2 is not the manufacturer of the vehicle nor opposite party No.2 has given any kind of guaranty or warranty, hence complainant is not consumer qua opposite party No.2.

17. On merits, the opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No.2 but no assurance was ever given by opposite party No.2 pertaining to the vehicle. Each and every kind of warranty associated with the vehicle was provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle i.e. opposite party No.1 only. The opposite party No. 2 has also pleaded that warranty of the vehicle in question has already been extended on 19.1.2021 uptill 20.1.2022 or upto 140000 KMs. which ever is earlier. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that the complaint of the complainant was duly resolved by repairing the vehicle in question. On 14.3.2020 the vehicle was received by opposite party No.2 for necessary repairs but in the meanwhile lock-down /curfew was implemented in the whole State of Punjab due to Covid-19 pandemic due to which opposite party was unable to repair the vehicle immediately. As soon as the restrictions were lifted /relaxed by the Government, the opposite party did the necessary repair and delivered the vehicle. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 regarding the repair of the car in question, the same was done on priority basis. The alleged defect in the engine may have occurred due to bad maintenance and bad driving of the vehicle in question and may also have occurred due to bad quality of fuel. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and this fact is proved by the mileage meter of the vehicle as the complainant has driven the vehicle for considerable Kilometers which is not possible with damaged or bad quality of engine. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

18. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his two affidavits dated 11.1.2021, 17.11.2021 (Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-7) respectively, and one affidavit of Avtar Singh dated 17.11.2021 (Ex. C-8) and the documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-15).

19. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Varun panta dated 25.3.2021 (Ex. OP-1/20) and documents (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/19).

20. The opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Krishan dated 7.7.2022 (Ex. OP-2/1) and documents (Ex. OP-2/2 and Ex.OP-2/3).

21. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased Hyundai Grand i10 Car vide Invoice Ex. C-2 and said vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., vide Ex. C-3. It is further argued that said vehicle was purchased from opposite party No. 2 manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and it was assured that car is of good brand and has good response from the market. The opposite parties also provided warranty of 2 years or upto 1,00,000 Kms of engine of the car and incase of any defect, the same is to be removed free of cost. It is further argued that after expiry of warranty on 17-1-2019, the complainant availed further extended warranty vide certificate Ex. C-4 which was valid upto 20-1-2021 or upto 1,00,000 Kms on payment of Rs. 7528.04 vide tax invoice Ex. C-5. It is also argued that vehicle in question was got serviced and examined from time to time from the opposite parties. However, during continuation of extended warranty on 15-1-2020, complainant faced some problem in the engine and there was problem of accelaration and at that time mileage of the car was 70921 Kms. Vehicle was taken to opposite party No. 2 and the said defect was repaired by the opposite party. However, on 14-3-2020, just after two months of above referred repair, the car again started giving problem and was not moving in the speed of more than 20-30 Kms/hr and at that time mileage of the car was 75937 Kms. The opposite party No. 2 inspected the vehicle and found that the wiring of the car damaged and after number of complaints and being approached, the car was repaired on 14-6-2020 and handed over to the complainant after delay of three months. The opposite parties delayed the repair for 3 months with the false excuse that wiring is to be procured from Korea. Immediately, thereafter on 16-6-2020, just after two days, the car again started giving problem on which the engineer of the opposite parties disclosed that engine of the car was having defect and required replacement at the cost of Rs. 2/3 Lacs. The mileage of the car at that time was 76062 Kms. Since the vehicle was under extended warranty, the engine was required to be replaced under warranty but the engineer disclosed that engine can be repaired only. The opposite party No. 2 retained the car for repair and after number of complaints and repeated visits of the complainant, car was repaired on 25-7-2020 by opposite party No. 2 under warranty. During the period from 17-1-2021 to 7-7-2022, complainant was deprived of user of his car by the opposite parties. It is further argued that on 7-8-2020, the complainant again faced some problem with the car when the mileage of the car was 78166 Kms and vehicle was repaired and delivered to the complainant on 20-8-2020. Again on 10-11-2020, chain system of the vehicle was replaced at 88914 Kms mileage. On 7-12-2020 when mileage was 92512 Kms, the vehicle was again had problem and was repaired on 30-12-2020. The vehicle again suffered problem and was repaired on 5-1-2021. The complainant again faced problem with the car when the mileage of the car was 96725 Kms and it was diclosed by opposite party No. 2 that engine is damaged. However, opposite party No. 2 refused to change the engine and rather offered a courtesy car for the time being which was in very poor condition and the grand son of the car refused to take the said car. The employees opposite party No. 2 misbehaved with the grand son of the complainant and inspite of the fact that engine of the car is damaged and having manufacturing defect, the opposite parties refused to replace the engine inspite of the fact that said defect occured during continuation of warranty, which amounts to deficiency in service.

22. In suppport of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on 2022(1) CPJ 210 (TN) titled D Sathish Kumar Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.; 2022 (2) CPJ 43 (Ker.) titled Jaison Lukose Vs. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,; 2021 (2) CPJ 60 (Odi.) B.M. Aditya Hyundai Vs. Rupranjan Das and 2009 (1) CPJ 500 Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Vs. Kanan Balal Baswal.

23. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that complainant has concealed the facts from this Commission. The complainant has concealed that vehicle had reported four times for accidetal repair on 24-7-2019 at 17,371 Kms, on 17-10-2019 at 59055 Kms, on 14-3-2020 at 64715 Kms. It is further argued that complainant has not maintained his vehicle as per service schedule as vehicle is required to be serviced at every 10,000 Kms which the complainant had failed to do so in the present case. It is also argued that since complainant has failed to keep proper maintenance and also reported his car for accidental repairs, thus the damaged of the same are not covered under HMIL warranty policy.

24. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has further argued that complainant has claimed that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle but complainant has not got the vehicle examined from any expert and in the absence of report of expert, it cannot be held that vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. It is also argued that opposite party No. 1 operates with all its dealers including opposite party No. 2 on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis and as such, the entire responsibility regarding repair, if any, is of opposite party No. 2. It is further argued that complainant faced this issue due to accidents and also due to non-maintenance of the vehicle. As such, the defect, if any, is not covered under the warranty and he prayed for dismissal of complaint.

25. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party No 1 has relied upon the case titled as Vikram Bajaj Vs. Hind Motors (india Limited & Another (2009(II) CLT 670); Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobiles & Another 1(2013) CPJ 47 (NC); Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Others (2010(2) CPC 67); M/s. Hero Honda Ltd., Vs. K B Murleedharan & Another and case titled as Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Others (Para 6).

26. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 argued that Lalit Bansal has no authority to file the present case on the basis of special power of attorney. It is further argued that opposite party No. 2 is not the manufacturer of the vehicle in question and warranty or gruarantee of the vehicle is to be given by manufacturer i.e. opposite party No. 1. It is also argued that rather admitted by opposite party No. 1 in para No. 5 of reply on merits that warranty of the vehicle in question has already been extended on 19-1-2021 uptill 20-1-2022 or upto 1,40,000 Kms whichever is earlier. It is further argued that vehicle of the complainant was received on 14-3-2020 for repair and delay, if any, in repair was due to COVID -19 restrictions. The engine of the car of the complainant was duly repaired but the complainant is insisting for replacing the engine under warranty. Since the engine can be repaired, as such under the warranty, the same cannot be replaced and the engine can be replaced only on payment being made by the complainant. It is further argued that complainant has successfully used his vehicle for considerable Kms which proves that engine of the vehicle in question is of good quality and needs no replacement. It is further argued that alleged defects in the engine may have occured due to bad maintenance and bad driving of the vehicle or use of bad quality of fuel. The opposite party No. 2 has never given any opinion that vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect and has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

27. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.

28. It is admitted fact car in question was purchased by the complainant on 18-1-2017 vide bill Ex. C-2 and vehicle was under extended warranty upto 20-1-2021 as per Ex. C-4. However, as per admission of opposite party No. 2, vehicle was under warranty upto 20-1-2022 or upto 1,40,000 Kms whichever is earlier. The chart of repair produced by the opposite parties shows that vehicle of the complainant came for repair for number of times i.e. 27-9-2019 at 59,055 Kms, 20-10-2019 at 64716 Kms, 23-6-2020 at 73062 Kms , 18-8-2020 at 78166 Kms and on 7-12-2020 at 92512 Kms meaning thereby that vehicle was repeatedly giving one or the other problem and the opposite party No. 2 has carried out necessary repairs under warranty. A perusal of invoices and repair orders produced by opposite party No. 1 shows that except for accidental repairs, the vehicle was also brought to the opposite parties for number of times for major repairs which were not associated with accidental repairs. A perusal of Ex. OP-1/12 which is invoice produced by opposite party No. 1, shows that on 25-7-2020 during continuation of warranty at 76-62 Kms, complete engine of the car was overhauled meaning thereby that there was complete failure of engine of the car at 76062 Kms and during said repair major parts of the engine i.e. Ring Set Piston, Valve Intake, Valve Exhaust, Piston & Pin & Snap Ring Assy. Gasket Cylinder Head were placed at a very major cost and since the vehicle was under warranty, only nominal amount of Rs. 3639/- was charged from the complainant. The plea of the opposite parties that vehicle of the complainant had suffered such defects on account of bad driving, use of wrong fuel and due to accidental cause, is itself falsified from the fact that opposite parties repaired and overhauled complete engine of the car on 25-7-2020 under warranty meaning thereby that the opposite parties admit that there was major fault in the failure of the engine which was repaired on 25-7-2020 under warranty. If there was any other reason for failure of the engine, due to accident, use of bad fuel or poor maintenance by complainant, in that case, major repair of the engine on 25-7-202 should have been refused by the opposite parties. Further perusal of invoice Ex. OP-1/13 similarly reveals that even thereafter on 20-8-2020 at 78166 Kms, the vehicle had again undergone major repair under warranty with replacement of Tensioner Assy. Cover Assy-Clutch, Bearing Clutch release, Turbocharger, Disc Assy Clutch. Even thereafter on 11-11-2020 at 88914 Kms, as per invoice Ex. OP-1/14, similarly, the vehicle again had to undergo major repairs with replacement of 15 parts. The only plea of the opposite parties is that there is no manufacturing defect in the engine and if there is any manufacturing defect in the engine, the same has not been proved by the complainant by obtaining any report of expert but a perusal of e-mail exchanged between complainant and opposite party No. 2 shows that on 17-2-2021, opposite party No. 2 has replied that “we are ready to repair your vehicle as per Hyundai Warranty terms and conditions but you have not given consent till date but your consent to start repair is pending from your side. Kindly come to our workshop and give consent so that we can repair the car as required. Opposite party No. 2 sent e-mail on 6-5-2022 (Ex. C-12), to complainant that “we have received your car. You have reported engine problem. For further checking, we require your approval for engine dismantle. After dismantle, we would be able to provide you correct repair cost/estimate.” On 6-5-2020 at 3.19 p.m. Approval was given by the complainant. Again vide e-mail on 12-5-2022 opposite party No. 2 informed that complainant that “as per your request through mail, we are diagnosing your vehicle. As this repair will be done on paid basis, hence, we are requesting you to approve that engine will be repaired with 100% chargeable payment from your side.” Vide e-mail dated 31-5-2022, it has been written by complainant that “as per our discussions in our house, you have already repaired the engine 2-3 times in the last years and for some parts, you are again charging in your estimate which you had given to us . So kindly given us estimate of new/complete change of engine. Opposite party No. 1 has replied vide e-mail dated 1-6-2022 that “during diagnosis, we have observed that engine failure happed due to dust entry from air filter body which is in broken condition. Because of dust entry in engine from broken side of air filter resulted in worn out of ring piston and turbo. This is to inform you that this engine failure does not relate with previous engine repair. We are waiting for your approval to start the engine repair on paid basis.”

29. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the vehicle of the complainant had undergone major repairs during continuation of warranty and there is also major/complete overhaul of the engine on 25-7-2020 as per Ex.OP-1/12 at 76062 Kms and even thereafter within short span of time, there is record of major replacement of major parts of the engine of the vehicle. This commission is of the considered opinion that although there is no report of expert to this effect that there is any manufacturing defect in the engine, but when the facts speak itself, there is no further requirement of report of any expert. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not been able to explain as to what was the reason for failure of engine for which complete overhaul of the engine took place on 25-7-2020. Since there is no explanation from the side of the opposite parties and the opposite parties silently repaired the engine of the car under warranty, it shows that there is manufacturing defect in the engine which was repaired on 25-7-2020 but even thereafter vehicle had to be taken to the opposite parties for one defect or the other in the engine. At present, there is admission on the part of opposite party No. 1 that there is complete failure of the engine vide reply to e-mail dated 1-6-2022. Although it has been stated that said failure of engine is due to entry of dust from broken filter but surprisingly when the vehicle was received by opposite party No. 2 from the complainant, there is no document on file to show that air filter body was broken when the vehicle was handed over to opposite party No. 2 for repair meaning thereby that opposite party No. 2 is finding execuses to avoid its liability to repair/replace the engine which is having manufacturing defect which started occuring at 76062 Kms. As such, from the facts on record and evidence/documents on record coupled with admission of opposite party No. 2 that vehicle is under warranty upto 20-1-2022 or upto 1,40,000 Kms, the opposite parties are duty bound to replace the defective engine free of cost being under warranty. So far as liability to replace the engine is concerned, the liability to replace the engine is of opposite party No. 1 i.e manufacturer . As per document Ex. OP-2/3 (Hyundai WarrantyPolicy), this warranty is the entire warranty given by HMIL for Hyundi vehicles and no dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to extend or enlarge this warranty and no dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to make any oral warranty on HMILs behalf.

30. The opposite party No. 1 has taken a plea that HMIL deals with its dealers including opposite party No. 2 on principal to principal basis and there is no relationship of principal and agent between HMIL and opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that errors/ommissions/mis-representations etc., if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. It is also submitted that HMIL cannot be held liable for the same. It is further submitted that HMIL cannot be held liable for non-manufacturing related issues and also relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Another. However, this Commission is of the view that since, as discussed above, this Commission has arrived at a conclusion that engine of the car owned by complainant was having manufacturing defect, as such, the liability to replace the engine of car is of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 cannot avoid its liability by taking excuse of principal to principal basis. Moreover, it is admitted fact of opposite party No. 1 that HMIL is liable for manufacturing related issues. Accordingly, it is liability of opposite party No. 1 i.e. manufacturer of the vehicle to bear the burden of replacement of engine of the car.

31. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to replace the engine of the car of the complainant with a new engine under warranty. However, the cost of the new engine shall be born by the opposite party No. 1.

32. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

33. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

34. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced

    25-05-2023

                                (Shivdev Singh)                                   (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                 Member                                               President