Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/63

PRANESH SODHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HYUNDAI MOTORS PLAZA - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 11.05.2016

First Appeal No. 63/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 16.09.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 664/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, (South-West) Local Shopping Complex Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi-110017)

In the matter of:

Pranesh Sodhi

R/o A-2/150, Janak Puri

New Delhi-58                                                  .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

The Managing Director

Hyundai Motors Plaza

A-38, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road

New Delhi-110044                                           ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Appellant Sh. Pranesh Sodhi has impugned the orders dated 16.09.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. Vide said orders, the complaint was partly allowed and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. Ld. District Forum had observed that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
2.         In brief, a car of Accent make was purchased by the complainant from Hyundai Motors Plaza on 12.12.2008. The vehicle was taken to the service centre of the Hyundai Motors Plaza (OP-1) on 29.01.2009. A problem of low level of engine oil was attended.  Complainant contended that the lights relating to the engine oil started blinking again and he took the vehicle to the service station on 30.05.2009. Same problem was reflected in the service sheet again. Complainant was asked to run the vehicle for another 2000 kms to check the performance. Parts of the engine like valve seal, head seal and other minor parts were replaced. AGM of the OP Sh. Puneet Anand issued a confirmation letter stating that a stern action shall be taken in the event the problem reoccurred. A senior service officer of the OP named Sh. Joshi on his own visited the place of the complainant on 15.06.2009 for routine inspection. Engine oil level was found low. After consultation with one Sh. Ankur Sharma of the OP, Sh. Joshi advised the complainant to run the vehicle for another 100 kms. Again on 12.07.2009 said Sh. Joshi accompanied by one Sh. Surinder, visited the place of the complainant. Finding the engine oil level low, the vehicle was taken to the workshop. The vehicle kept lying at the workshop of the OP at Mathura Road Delhi since 30.07.2009. During the course of pendency of the complaint, complainant took the vehicle on the workshop from 05.10.2009.
3.         Defence raised by the OP was that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in a perfect running condition and there was no defect either of technical or mechanical in nature. Submission of the OP is that the vehicle reported for first free service on 29.01.2009 when it had already done 1879 kms. Complainant was required to make available the vehicle after mileage of 1000-1200 kms. Complainant thereafter brought his car to the workshop on 30.05.2009 when it had done 5220 kms. After thorough inspection, change of valve seal, head seal, engine oil and filter assembly, car was delivered to the complainant in a perfect running condition. Complainant was informed that the said problem occurred due to non driving of the vehicle on petrol mode for a long period. Valve seal got damaged due to less lubrication. It is only on the petrol mode that the lubrication remains upto the mark. A letter was written to the complainant assuring proper service. Complainant was advised to keep his vehicle under observation for the next 15 days. The car went to the workshop of the OP on 12.07.2007 at a mileage of 8002 kms, for a general check up. There was no specific complaint. Inspection was done. Checkups relating to the spark plug check, injector check and ISA check were carried out. Vehicle was found in a perfect condition. Complainant was asked to report his vehicle the next day. It was kept under observation for 4 days. Vehicle was test driven for 1228 kms. No decrease in engine oil level was observed. Complainant was requested to take the delivery but he refused to do so. It was only during the pendency of the complaint that he took the delivery on 05.10.2009.
4.         Ld. District Forum gave finding to the that there was no manufacturing defect on the premise that the problem arose only due to non-lubrication of the engine as the vehicle used to be run only on CNG mode. Complainant had been advised to fill up one fourth of the petrol tank and run the vehcile on petrol mode intermittently. Repairs carried out on 11.11.2009, 15.11.2009, 13.07.2009, 19.01.2009 and 30.05.2009 did not show any manufacturing defect. Ld. District Forum further observed that there was no complaint of the vehicle after 15.11.2009.
5.         I have heard the Appellant in person and the Counsel for the Respondent Sh. Nakul Chaudhary Advocate.
6.         Perusal of the record shows that the complainant had all along been complaining of the decrease in the engine oil level without referring to any trouble as such given by the vehicle. It is, therefore, clear that there was no major problem from the vehicle. Be that as it may, as observed by the Ld. District Forum it was an omission on the part of the complainant, as he failed to follow the instructions of running the vehicle on petrol mode and CNG mode alternatively. For a proper lubrication, running on petrol mode was an essential condition.  Test drive of the car for 1228 kms by Hyundai Motors Plaza did not show any decrease in the level of engine oil level. Conduct of the OP i.e. Hyundai Motors Plaza in attending to the vehicle has been appreciable as without any complaint from the side of the complainant, its engineers visited the place of the complainant twice and changed the parts free of costs. Vehicle is doing fine, till date.  During the course of arguments, complainant fairly conceded that as on date, vehicle had done 70,000 kms. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the vehicle did not suffer from manufacturing defect as such.
7.         The amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- awarded to the complainant is on the lower side. OP i.e. Hyundai Motors Plaza ought have instructed the complainant properly on handling of the vehicle. Keeping in view the persistence of the problem of low engine oil level and in the interest of justice amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- awarded is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Costs of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- are not interfered with. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
8.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
9.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)