Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/442/2017

MOHINI SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HYUNDAI MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM SHARMA

03 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No               101/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution       28-05-2015

 Date of Decision           19-02-2018

 

Mohini Sharma,

W/O Kuldeep Kumar,

R/O Katra,at present,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                V/S

1.Hyundai Motors India Ltd.

  5^th and 6^th Floor,Corporate-one

 Banni Building Plot No.5,Commercial Centre,

Jasola Vihar,Delhi.

2.Crest Hyundai,Crest Autocraft(P)Ltd.

  5^th Milestone,N.H.-1A,Kunjwani Bye-Pass Road,

Jammu-180010(J&K).

                                                                                                                                              Opposite parties

CORAM:-

                  Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                  Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar                                              Member.

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Vikram Sharma, Advocate, for complainant, present.

Mr. Manish Kumar,Dy.Manager,Legal & Secretarial for OP1, present.

Mr.Dheeraj Nanda,Advocate for OP2,present.

 

ORDER

                       Shorn of unnecessary details, allegation of complainant is that she fell into the prey of Ops through media campaign she purchased Grand i10 Sportz car manufactured by OP1 and sold by OP2 as dealer for a sale consideration of Rs.6,54,273/-through cheque No.227251 dated 30-12-2013 drawn on J&K Bank, copy of receipt is annexed as Annexure-A .According to complainant, the car was delivered to her  and the same was got duly insured  and registered with Registering Authority,Reasi,copy of certificate of registration is annexed as Annexure-C.Complainant further submitted that she always kept her car properly maintained under proper service of OP2,as per Service Manual, copies of proper servicing of car dated 51-01-2014,17-04-2014 and 08-09-2014 are annexed as Annexure-D and the car was never left un-maintained. Allegation of complainant is that in the month of September,2014,her car unfortunately got struck by a small boulder on the road resulting in its erratic performance, her son immediately took the car to OP No.2 on,20-09-2014 where the Service Advisor Sh.Suresh Singh Chib employed by OP2 and dealing with attending the car repairs told that the entire engine of the car would have to be opened up as the same has got seized and the complainant was also told by the service advisor of OP2 that the problem will be absolutely cured and for that complainant was asked to leave the car with them until the same is properly repaired. That the complainant accordingly left the car with OP2 on,20-09-2014 and the vehicle was retained by OP2 for three months and her son visited service station of OP2 and every time OP2 assured that the car will be delivered free of any problems and finally the complainant was asked to take delivery of the car on,24-12-2014.That on,24-12-2014  when the complainant alongwith her son went to OP2 for taking the delivery of car, the OP2 told them that the problem stands removed and for the repairs so effected, she would have to pay a total of Rs.1,65,038/-,which included an amou8nt of Rs.20,458/-charged under the Labour Amount, copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-E and the complainant made the payment as demanded by OP2 under an assurance that the car would be repaired properly. Allegation of complainant is that despite paying Rs.1,65,038/-for repair of car, the car in question again developed a snag in less than a month, her son again took the car to OP2 on,29-01-2015,where he was told to replace the engine oil once again besides other replacements, copy of invoice dated 29-01-2015 is annexed as Annexure-F,but despite charging a sum of Rs.20,458/-as labour charges for repairs, complainant was gain charged Rs.2524/-on.29-01-2015 which was again inclusive of labour charges, despite the fact that repairs were never effected by OP2 as assured by it. Complainant further submitted that the car was delivered back to her but she was again compelled to bring the car back to OP2 on 18-03-2015 on account of recurring problem in its working and the service advisor again inspected the car and told her to keep the car with it for effecting repairs afresh and the car was kept for 22 days by OP2,but OP2 again charged a sum of Rs.9155/-including Rs./600/-as labour charges, copy of bill dated 09-04-2015 is annexed as Annexure-G. According to complainant, the Ops are liable to compensate the complainant for selling the car with an inherent manufacturing defect and also for the deficiency in service,therefore,complainant prays for replacement of car with a new car of the same model and refund of Rs.2 lacs on account of assurance tendered by Ops that the far would be cured of all problems  and in addition sum of Rs.1.20 lacs as compensation, including litigation charges.

                 On the other hand,OP1 filed written versions, wherein Op1 has admitted sale of car I20 and same was used up to third free service without any problem. Complainant has attached repair history cards of free services as Annexure-D showing details of three free services, it is evident from these documents that there was no specific problem with respect of performance of vehicle. It is evident from the record that at the time of third free service on,08-09-2014,vehicle in question has already covered an extensive mileage of 20,000 kms in a period of about 8 months since its purchase. Hence contention of complainant that vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect is baseless and without any merit. Further stand of  OP1 is that vehicle in question met with an accident and reported on,20-09-2014 at the mileage of 21,891 kms at the workshop of OP2 for accidental repair, documents annexed with complaint as Annexure-E clearly shows that accidental repair work was carried under insurance of United India Insurance Co.The OP1 further submitted that there was no problem with vehicle before accident. It is an allegation of complainant that accidental repair work was not carried out properly by OP2.Further,all the allegations for deficiency in service is only against OP2,hence there is no cause of action against answering OP.therefore,there is no deficiency on its part. The Op1 further submitted that working relationship between OP1 and OP2 is that of a principal-to-principal basis and therefore,OP1 cannot be held liable for the acts  of OP2.It is further submitted that the liability of OP1 being the manufacturer of the Hyundai Cars is limited and extends its warranty obligations alone. It is also important to mention that the cars are purchased by concerned dealers such as OP2 from OP1 against payment and thereafter, the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers, therefore, there is no deficiency on its part.

                 At the same time, notice was sent to the OP2 alongwith copy of complaint through registered cover with acknowledgment due and as per record the notice was received by OP2 but OP2 did not choose to represent the case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so its right to file written version was closed vide order dated 15-09-2015 and complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavit in support of the complaint.

                        Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Nitin S.Bharti and Nitin Sadhotra,respectively.Complainant has placed on record copy of payment receipt of Rs.6,54,273/-issued by Crest Autokraft Pvt.Ltd.,copy of delivery receipt, copy of certificate of registration, copies of job cards, copies of invoice cash memo and copy of repair order.

              On the other hand Ops have adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Manish Kumar Dy. Manager Legal and Secretarial in Hyundai Motor India Limited.

           We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                       Briefly stated, grievance of complainant is that she purchased Grand i10 Sportz car manufactured by OP1 and sold by OP2 as dealer for a sale consideration of Rs.6,54,273/-through cheque No.227251 dated 30-12-2013 drawn on J&K Bank, the car was delivered to her  and the same was got duly insured  and registered with Registering Authority,Reasi.Complainant further submitted that she always kept her car properly maintained under proper service of OP2,as per Service Manual, copies of proper servicing of car dated 51-01-2014,17-04-2014 and 08-09-2014 are annexed as Annexure-D and the car was never left un-maintained. Allegation of complainant is that in the month of September,2014,her car unfortunately got struck by a small boulder on the road resulting in its erratic performance, her son immediately took the car to OP No.2 on,20-09-2014 where the Service Advisor Sh.Suresh Singh Chib employed by OP2 and dealing with attending the car repairs told that the entire engine of the car would have to be opened up as the same has got seized and the complainant was also told by the service advisor of OP2 that the problem will be absolutely cured and for that complainant was asked to leave the car with them until the same is properly repaired. That the complainant accordingly left the car with OP2 on,20-09-2014 and the vehicle was retained by OP2 for three months and her son visited service station of OP2 and every time OP2 assured that the car will be delivered free of any problems and finally the complainant was asked to take delivery of the car on,24-12-2014.That on,24-12-2014  when the complainant alongwith her son went to OP2 for taking the delivery of car, the OP2 told them that the problem stands removed and for the repairs so effected, she would have to pay a total of Rs.1,65,038/-,which included an amou8nt of Rs.20,458/-charged under the Labour Amount, copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-E and the complainant made the payment as demanded by OP2 under an assurance that the car would be repaired properly. Allegation of complainant is that despite paying Rs.1,65,038/-for repair of car, the car in question again developed a snag in less than a month, her son again took the car to OP2 on,29-01-2015,where he was told to replace the engine oil once again besides other replacements, but despite charging a sum of Rs.20,458/-as labour charges for repairs, complainant was gain charged Rs.2524/-on.29-01-2015 which was again inclusive of labour charges, despite the fact that repairs were never effected by OP2 as assured by it. Complainant further submitted that the car was delivered back to her but she was again compelled to bring the car back to OP2 on 18-03-2015 on account of recurring problem in its working and the service advisor again inspected the car and told her to keep the car with it for effecting repairs afresh and the car was kept for 22 days by OP2,but OP2 again charged a sum of Rs.9155/-including Rs./600/-as labour charges. According to complainant, the Ops are liable to compensate the complainant for selling the car with an inherent manufacturing defect and also for the deficiency in service.

                       The complainant in her own affidavit and the affidavits of witnesses have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that complainant has succeeded in proving her case as narrated by her in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, and affidavits of Nitin S.Bharti and Nitin Sadhotra respectively, so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint.

                                   This is a case of deficiency in service. The OP2 despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover has not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the OP2 in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OP2 omits or fails to take any action to represent the case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OP2 omits or fails to take any action to represent the case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                          After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.   

                               Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion complaint is allowed and OP2 is directed either to replace the vehicle with a new one or refund the cost of vehicle to the tune of Rs.6,54,273/-to the complainant. The OP2 shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                                    President

19-02-2018                                                           District Consumer Forum

                                                                                                        Jammu.

Agreed by                                                                

 

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member