Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 333.
Instituted on : 06.06.2017.
Decided on : 25.01.2021.
Ajay Singh age 35 years s/o Sh. Rajpal Singh R/o H.No.31/29, Chankya Puri, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Hyundai Motor India, Regd. Office & Factory, Irrugattukottai, NH No.4 Sriperumbudur Taluka, Kanchipuram, Distt. Tamilnadu-602117.
- Hyundai Motors Ltd. Head Office 5th & 6th Floor, Corporate One, Baani Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, Delhi-110025.
- Sristhi Hyundai Motors, Opp. New Power House Jind Bye Pass Road, Rothak.
- Hitesh Saini, Amarsons Electronics Sardar Kulbir Singh Marg, Balaji Gas Agency Wali Gali, Sector-4, Near K.L. Mehta Girls College, Faridabad.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Anurag Saharan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.S.Soni, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.4 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is owner of Hyundai i20 bearing registration No.DL-7CN-1144. That on 14.09.2015 the complainant went to the respondent No.3 to got check his car due to flashing of orange light in speedo meter display. The respondent no.3 told the complainant that there is some problem in ECM/Electric part of the engine and respondent no.3 told the complainant that they are unable to repair this part because of lack of technical expertness and the same is to be sent to Hyundai vendor for repairing and accordingly, the complainant contacted the respondent No.4 with a sealed parcel having in it the ECM. That respondent no.4 repaired the ECM and it was sent to OP no.3 on 21.09.2015. That opposite party no.3 after installing the same in the car, found that after fitment ammobilizer light not showing in the cluster meter, radiator fan was working directly and vehicle starter motor was not responding. Respondent no.3 again sent the ECM for checking it to the respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 replied that ECM is short and blamed the respondent no.3 for improper installation of ECM due to which ECM fuse has blown and now it is irreparable. Respondent no.3 & 4 blamed each other for the alleged fault and did not sort out the problem. Complainant also contacted the respondent no.1 but to no effect and lastly the complainant had to repair the ECM from outside. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.27000/- for repairing of the ECM and Rs.70000/- for new ECM and also to pay Rs.11000/- as counsel fee and Rs.50000/- for causing mental harassment to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that complainant is second owner of the vehicle. That no allegation has been made against the opposite party no.1 & 2 and the entire dispute in regard to ECM is strictly inter se OP No.3, 4 & complainant. Moreover, the vehicle is more than 5 years old and the same is out of warranty. That the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the answering respondent no.3 told the complainant that they are unable to repair the part because of lack of technical expertness or the respondent no.4 replied that ECM is short and blamed the respondent no.3 for improper installation of ECM. That respondent no.4 told the complainant that after checking the part it was noticed that the ECM was previously repaired from outside and mishandled, due to which problem occurred in the vehicle. The respondent no.4 further told that ECM is in tampered condition and water had entered inside the ECM and same could not be repaired but on the request of the complainant, respondent no.4 repaired the ECM and sent it to answering respondent no.3 but when the same was fitted, it was not working properly and was again sent to respondent no.4 for repair. At that time, the respondent no.4 informed that the ECM is now not in a condition to repair and the same was communicated to the complainant. Thus, the ECM was not covered under warranty, so there was no question of replacing it. Even otherwise, the complainant has specifically admitted that he had got the ECM repaired from outside, so the guarantee/warranty stands extinguished. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party No.4 did not appear despite notice through registered post and opposite party no.4 was proceeded against vide order dated 26.10.2017 of this Forum.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 11.01.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/2 and closed his evidence on dated 09.10.2018. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed his evidence on dated 12.09.2018.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the material aspects of the case as well as the written arguments filed by opposite party No.1 & 2 on dated 23.07.2019 very carefully. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 has also placed reliance upon the authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in III(1999)CP23(SC) titled as Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., 1995(6)SCC 566 titled as Vijay Traders vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd., IV(2006)CPJ257(NC) titled as R.Bhaskar Vs. D.N.Udani,
6. In the present case there was some problem in ECM/Electric part of the engine of the car of complainant and as such complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 & 4. That respondent no.4 repaired the ECM and it was sent to OP no.3 on 21.09.2015 for installation, but after installing the same in the car, it did not work properly. The contention of the complainant is that opposite party No.3 & 4 blamed each other for the alleged fault and did not sort out the problem. To prove this fact, complainant has placed on record copy of email dated 03.10.2015, whereby opposite party No.3 has submitted that : “We have received a i20 vehicle for starting problem on dated 14.09.2015 and found that ECM pin damage sent for repair. We have received ECM after repair on dated 21.09.2015 when we have checked the ECM after fitment immobilizer light not showing in cluster meter, Radiator fan was working directly and vehicle starter motor was not responding. We sent the ECM again for check and we got reply that the ECM is short. We have again received ECM on dated 01.10.2014 and the ECM fitment was not proper. All pins of ECM was not soldered properly. Please check the attached image for your reference. In reply to the same opposite party No.2 has submitted on dated 03.10.2015 that: “This is the symptom of improper installation as this problem occurs when the ECM main body gets in contact with the positive terminal of the battery. When we received the part second time we found that the ECM board was burnt due to improper installation and informed that it is impossible to repair it. Mr. Chander Shekhar told us that the customer wants his ECM back and is taking the vehicle back from their service center. So we asked from Mr. Shekhar to remove our remanufactured coupler from the ECM and putting back a rusted coupler and returning the amount which we took for remanufacturing. As you can see in image this is the reason we did not soldered the coupler to the board because it was burnt, not working and blowing main fuse. Sir these types of issues we get regularly, but when a tempered part works fine after our repair job the same doesn’t comes to your notice. But when there is a problem like this the dealer totally blames us ignoring our support and help. Kindly give your valuable advice for dealing such kind of issues.” As per reply of opposite party no.3 to opposite party No.4 dated 05.10.2015 3.44PM, it is submitted that: “We are not agree with you when we sent the ECM first time it came for the problem of starting concern in vehicle if it was tempered then how could it be possible that you repaired the already damaged ECM it would not have been repaired on first time. Also, for the proper installation of ECM our Senior Technical person has fitted the same so there is not possibility of improper installation.” As per reply of the same, on dated 05.10.2015 at 4.20PM, it is submitted by opposite party no.4 that: “In this case we were working on a part which was previously repaired from outside and mishandled. Due to which the problem occurred in the vehicle and you send the customer alongwith the part to us. Everything was explained to the customer and to your concerned person while receiving the part first time and we did our job with perfection and utmost care to bring back the ECM again in working condition. Already informed earlier that now the part is not in a condition to be repaired”. As per mail dated 05.10.2015 of the complainant, it is submitted that: “This seems that ECM Board got burnt due to mishandling at Srishti. Request you to stop blaming each other and find the solution. Otherwise it will push me to take legal advices and actions”. Thereafter on dated 05.10.2015 at 6.27PM a mail was sent by opposite party No.3 to the complainant, which is a reply to the complaint registered by the complainant regarding ECM mishandling. As per this mail, it is submitted that : “As discussed with you for the ECM repair denial by concerned vendor. We have already forwarded you the reply for your reference and as per the reply 06.10.2015, opposite party no.3 told the complainant that: “We deeply regret for the inconvenience caused to you. We have taken serious action and assure you that such instances would not happen again. Also, as discussed with you for the ECM repair denial by concerned vendor. We have already forwarded you the reply for your reference”.
7. From the alleged conversation between the opposite party No.3 & 4 it is clear that the ECM got defective due to improper installation by the opposite party No.3. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 is liable to compensate the complainant. As per the complainant he has demanded Rs.27000/- on account of repairing of the ECM and Rs.70000/- for new ECM alongwith compensation. Complainant has placed on record a bill Ex.C2 amounting to Rs.27000/- for repairing of alleged ECM But has not placed on record any document to prove that he has purchased a new ECM or that the repaired ECM is not working properly. Hence complainant is only entitled for repair charges.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the law cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 & 2 are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and as such present complaint is hereby allowed with direction to the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.27000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.06.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.01.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
