CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.111/2017
SH. SANJAY BHAGAT
S/O SH. VED PRAKASH BHAGAT
R/O 387, SECTOR 37,
FARIDABAD - 121003 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
THROUGH SH. SAURABH BIST, AREA MANAGER
A-30, MCIE, MATURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110044
ALSO AT:-
M/S HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
PLOT NO. H-1 SIPCOT, INDUSTRIAL PARK, INRRUNGATTUKOTTAI,
SRIPERUMBUDUR FACTORY TALUK,
KANCHEEPURAM DISTT,
TAMILNADU – 602177
- M/S SUNRISE AUTO WORLD PVT. LTD.
AUTHORIZED DEALER OF M/S HYUNDAI INDIA LTD.
SUNRISE COMPLEX, PLOT NO. 2,
I.P. EXTENSION, NEAR MOTHER DAIRY PLANT,
OPP. PANDAV NAGAR, DELHI – 110092
- M/S MAHADEV HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
13/3, NEAR FRICK INDIA,
MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD,
HARYANA- 121003
- SH. SAURABH BIST, AREA MANAGER
M/S HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
A-30, MCIE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110044. …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-07.03.2017
Date of Order- 09.02.2023
O R D E R
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN-PRESIDENT
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service as well as defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant.
The complainant is a consumer who purchased a Hyundai Creta 1.4 CRDI S+ from OP2, the dealer. The vehicle was manufactured by OP1. OP4 is the Area Manager of OP1. The car were purchased for Rs. 12,09,862/- on 21.3.2016. It is alleged that there were some minor scratches on the body of the car at the time of delivery and the same was notified to the official of OP2.
Within a week from the date of purchase after driving the car for around 350 kms., complainant noticed white fumes coming out of the car. He stopped the car and threw water on the engine of the car. Since the fumes did not stop, the complainant called the Hyundai emergency complaint center number i.e. 4482502295 and registered a complaint. To his utter shock and dismay nobody came to inspect the car and ascertain the cause of smoke. The complainant recorded the incident in the form of video recording.
The car was taken by OP3 to its workshop on 9.4.2016 on request made by the complainant. The complainant also sent an email to Area Manager of Hyundai Motors India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP4 on 16.4.2016 to find out the status of the car. It was only on 19.4.2016, the complainant was apprised by email that no defect was found in the car. He was assured that the car was in perfect condition. The complainant enquired about the cause of smoke and required assurances that the same problem would not occur again. OP1through OP4 instead asked the complainant to take back his car failing which OP3 would start charging parking fees.
The complainant requested for road worthiness certificate and an inspection by an independent automobile engineer. The complainant was asked to collect his car without being given any reason or cause of fault. The complainant had lost all confidence and faith in the product manufactured by OP1. He again approached OP1 to know the action taken by OPs. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice to OP1 and OP4.
The complainant avers that he bought his car after paying hard earned money to make his life easier by using it for daily conveyance. His family was present in the car when the incident happened. It is contended that had the incident happened on a large scale, he and his family would have lost their lives.
The complainant prays either for replacement of defective vehicle or refund of the purchase amount of Rs. 12,09,862/- payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment and agony along with litigation cost.
The complainant has filed invoice, CD showing the fumes coming out of the engine, copy of emails and legal notice to OP1 with postal receipts and reply of legal notice by OP2.
OP1 in its reply has stated that the disputes raised by the complainant are service related and OP1 being a manufacturer has no role in retail sale/ after sale service of car. It is clarified that OP1 has a relationship on principal to principal basis with its dealer. It is further alleged that as no amount was paid to OP1, there is no privity of contract. OP1 submits that its liability is limited and extends only to its warranty obligations.
OP1 submits that the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant by OP2 on 25.3.2017. Thereafter, the said vehicle was reported for running repairs at OP3 with mileage of 578 Kms. The problem was concerning smell with fumes. After inspection it was found that there was no defect in the vehicle and same was informed to the complainant. The complainant failed to take delivery of the car.
It is alleged that the complainant was informed by Mr. Saurabh Bist on 19.4.2016 that after inspection no defect was found in the car and all electrical wiring and electronic components were found in perfect condition. The complainant was further reassured that there were no quality related issues. The complainant was requested to take delivery of the vehicle on 25.4.2016 and 29.4.2016. A road worthiness certificate dated 3.5.2017 was also issued. Various mails dated 13.5.2016, 15.6.2016, 11.7.2016, 22.7.2016, 25.7.2016, 28.7.2016, 30.7.2016, 10.8.2016 were sent to complainant to inspect and take the delivery of the vehicle.
OP1 reiterates that there was no defect in the vehicle and complainant failed to take timely delivery of the said vehicle. As per information available to OP1, the white fumes were water vapour from the water that was admittedly thrown by complainant on the engine of the car. Meanwhile, the temporary registration certificate of the car expired and RTO authority started demanding penalty for the registration as per the information available to OP1. It is alleged that complainant has neither produced report of any laboratory and no expert opinion is placed on the record. It is further alleged that no injury has been caused to the complainant by OP1.
OP2 in its reply has admitted that the vehicle was purchased from OP2’s showroom. OP2 has denied that any complaints were made by the complainant with respect to the said vehicle. OP2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
OP3 and OP4 did not file any reply.
Complainant in his rejoinder reiterates the averments made in the complaint. It is again stated that OPs never explained the reason as to why the said incident happened. The complainant has also denied receiving the road worthiness certificate dated 3.5.2016.
Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. He has reiterated the contentions made in the complaint and exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of invoice is exhibited as Ex. CW1/1.
- Copy of video recording of the incident is exhibited as Ex. CW2/2.
- Copy of e-mails is exhibited as Ex. CW3/3.
- Copy of legal notice along with postal receipts is exhibited as Ex. CW 4/4(Colly).
- Copy of reply received from OP1 is exhibited as Ex. CW5/5.
OP1 has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri. Varun Panta, Assistant Manager, and exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of emails are exhibited as OP1/1-3.
- Copy of road worthiness certificate is exhibited as OP1/4.
- Copy of emails are exhibited as OP1/5-14.
The commission has considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and material on record. It is admitted by the complainant, OP1 and OP2 that a vehicle namely CRETA 1.4, CRDi S+ polar white, bearing No.MALC281RLGM084451, Chasis No. MALC281RLGM084451*C was purchased by complainant on 21.3.2016 for Rs. 12,09,862/-. The complainant has filed a CD showing a recording of fumes coming out from the engine of the said vehicle. The same has not been denied by OP1.
It is further admitted by complainant and OP1 that vehicle was taken by OP3 for inspection and repairs on 9.4.2016.
The emails placed on record by complainant and OP1 are not denied. The emails are between the complainant and Mr. Saurabh Bist who is Area Parts and Service Manager of OP1.
Email dated 26.4.2016 from complainant to OP4 reads as under:- OP has agreed to give in writing that “fume conditions you are not able to reproduce and car is safe enough for driving”.
Email dated 29.4.2016 from OP to complainant reads as under:-
“Road worthiness certificate for the vehicle was attached with e-mail while requesting the complainant to take delivery of the car.”
Complainant replied vide another email on the same date at 11:56PM reads as under:-
- Please write excepitily (Sic) that the problem reported by me is not existing in model. I had already told to you this.
Car is in your custody from no 20 days. Presently without proper letter i don’t consider worth to have the vehicle.
From my end the Vehicle is in your custody, your premises and returned as defective peace (Sic) of manufacturing for which the registration authority has refused to register.
………..
For me it is Defective Creta delivered to me with scratched which was mentioned by me in PDI report as well.
Without the proper reasons of smoke or proper explanation of not able to reproduce the scenario, i am not going to accept delivery under my circumstances.”
Email dated 3.5.2016 from complainant to OP reads as under:-
“I have already informed you that I need resolution of my problem. There is no correlation of my complaint with respect to letter issued.
I need in black and white in the letter on the status of my complaint.
As I already told you that was severe fumes in the car which could have been fatal for my and my family.”
OP3 replied on the same date as follows: Again we would like to inform you that roadworthiness letter includes the entire vehicle checkup points and covers all vehicle aspects for the same.
We reassure you that there is no quality related issue with you said car.
Email dated 6.7.2016 from complainant to OP reads as under:-
“c) You changing the stance everytime and then don’t provide the letter which I am requesting day one. It is still pending today as well.
d) I told my precondition for accepting the delivery of defective car with a letter giving em in writing closure of complaints and reason of fire which I am still sticking to even though the video clearly shown fire which is never refuted by yourself till date.
e)Still you have not provided the letter and hence the process of registration is held up and you are responsible for that delay as well.”
Email dated 11.7.2016 from OP to complainant reads as under:-
“As already informed to you by the workshop and HMIL as well that you vehicle is ready for delivery at Mahadev Hyundai.
We once again request you to kindly take the delivery of your vehicle at the earliest.”
Email dated 16.7.2016 from complainant to OP reads as under:-
“I have requested to give me in writing that there is no fire incident with the car. This is first time has been accepted by your self after 3 months of efforts at least in mail. My request to you is to give me writing the same ON LETTER HEAD WHICH YOU ARE DELIBERATELY AVOIDING FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO YOU.”
Email dated 22.7.2016 from OP to complainant reads as under:-“Kindly find the letter attached. Same has been sent through registered post.
We have closed you complaint from our end.”
Undated email from OP to complainant reads as under:-
“You already acknowledged our e-mails dated April 25, 2016; April 26,2016; April 29, 2016; May 3,2016;. May 13, 2016; June 15, 2016; July 11,2016; July 22, 2016 and July 25,2016 wherein we had repeatedly communicated to you that your car is perfectly fine and roadworthy and you should take the delivery of car from Mahadev Hyundai.”
Email dated 28.7.2016 from complainant to OP reads as under:-
“I have already told you, please give me in writing that my complaint of fire is closed or not?
You are not writing about status of my complaint and forcing me to take delivery.
I assure Shri Saurabh, I will not accept the delivery of vehicle until you will give me in writing that my complaint of fire is closed.”
Undated email from complainant to OP reads as under:-
“We again would like to inform you that roadworthiness letter sent to you includes the entire vehicle checkup points and covers all vehicles aspects for the same.”
Email dated 15.6.2016 from complainant to OP reads as under:-
“a)You are not giving closure of my complaint of fire incident.
b)You are just providing the road worthiness certificate which has no relation with my complaint.
………
f) My own doubt is that car was defective peace of work when delivered to me as was evident from delivery inspection report (PID or PRD checklist report). You can take the copy of that from your record and my observation shows that car was already used with scratches and on assurance of manager of Sunrise Hyundai, I had taken he delivery. The same was evident by this fire incident with in 15 days of taking delivery.”
It is clear from the correspondence that complainant is ready to take the delivery of the vehicle on following conditions:-
- A letter is provided by OP stating that complaint of fire incident is closed.
- Reason for the fumes along with the assurance that the same would not recur in the said vehicle.
OP is also ready for the delivery of the vehicle by stating that
- Car is perfectly fine and roadworthy.
- The road worthiness certificate covers the entire vehicle checkup points and covers all vehicle aspects of the vehicle.
- There is no quality related issue with the said car.
- There is no defect in the vehicle.
Even the road worthiness certificate filed on record by OP1 states:-
a. there is no manufacturing defect on inspection.
b. vehicle is perfectly okay as per HMIL vehicle specification.
c. all the parameters and performance of the vehicle are as per recommended HMIL standards.
From the aforesaid emails, it can be seen that the complainant only required the reason for the cause of the fumes and a closure of his complaint regarding the fire incident in writing. OP instead of clearly stating the cause of fire incident in writing, gives a road worthiness certificate while clarifying that the vehicle is not defective. Emails by OP smack of cover up of the incident. There is vague assertion that there is no defect in the car without any particulars. OP1 have tried to explain the smoke as water vapour. No report/ affidavit of any mechanic/ engineer/ technician has been filed explaining the cause of smoke or giving a summary of repairs done to rectify the smoke even when this matter was before this Commission. The roadworthiness certificate has been issued by Area Sale Manager who has no competency regarding the mechanical defects/ roadworthiness of vehicle.
Though, the vehicle was delivered on 25.3.2016 and taken for repair on 9.4.2016, it was ready for delivery after inspection only on 19.4.2016. It is difficult to comprehend as to reasons why inspection of a newly purchased vehicle with mere mileage of 570 kms. which was perfectly roadworthy having no quality issues would take 10 whole days for giving road worthiness certificate. A car may develop problems that need fixing but it is radically different from accepting a car that is defective when sold. A reasonable consumer would not compromise with safety and would definitely ascertain the cause of smoke and steps taken to rectify it. A newly purchased car, developing serious problems like smoke coming out of engine, requires 10 days of inspection then it is ready for delivery stating no defect and rectification points to the fact that OPs conducts appears to be misleading and suspicious.
Hon’ble National Commission in M/S. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. M/S. Affiliated East West Press, Revision Petition No. 958 of 2007 decided on 29.11.2007 has observed The question which arises for consideration in this case is if a luxury car, namely, Accent Car CRD Diesel Model, gives trouble within one or two months of its purchase, would the consumer be satisfied with such a car? Whether the multi-national company manufacturing such a car, is justified in not replacing the car or refunding purchase price and instead engaging in protracted litigation?
In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. Further, in such cases, the manufacturing Company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely, because it has the money power.
Hon’ble National Commission in Vinoo Bhagat vs. General Motors (India) Ltd 3 CCC 79 (2005) decided on 30.01.2003 has observed it was the duty of the respondents to disclose the make of the engine which was a Holden engine manufactured by Holden Company of Australia, though it might be as per with the technical know-how of Adam Opel A.G. If we read the brochure it conveys to consumer that Opel Astra is a German car made in Germany. The origin of the car had to be disclosed so that a consumer is not misled. A consumer had to be protected against such practices. Even an innocent representation is of no avail.
OP1 has contended in its reply that it is not concerned with after sales service. Emails relied on by both parties are exchanged between the complainant and OP4 who is the Area Sales Manager of OP1. Even the road worthiness certificate is issued by OP4 i.e. employee of OP1. Hence, this contention does not hold any merit.
Furthermore, a defect in a newly purchased car points toward a possible defect in manufacturing and OP cannot shrug off its liability. OP1 and OP4 had full opportunity to place the expert opinion as they were providing the roadworthy certificate after inspection and rectification. Under these circumstances, demanding expert opinion from complainant is preposterous.
The manufacturer knowing well the safety hazard of fumes failed to respond immediately. Thereafter, OP1 refused to disclose the problem/ defect in the newly purchased car. As a matter of fact, OP1 refused to acknowledge the fumes in any of its e-mail. Till date, neither the reason for defect is disclosed nor is the reason for 10 days taken for inspection in a non-defective car clarified. A consumer of newly purchased car facing serious safety hazard and danger is not expected to accept the roadworthy certificate of the manufacturer without getting an assurance that the same incident would not recur and without knowing the cause of the fume and rectification thereof the vehicle. OP3 had taken no steps to compel the complainant to take delivery as no legal notice or proceedings have been initiated for taking the delivery of the vehicle in question despite repeated requests and reminders to the complainant. By this conduct; the OP3 and OP1 seems to have acknowledged the assertion and concern of the complainant about the safety due to the defects in the vehicle sold to the complainant.
Thus, we hold that vehicle appears to have manufacturing defect and OP1 and OP3 are held deficient in service in not explaining the cause of defect and are accordingly directed:-
- To refund the cost of car i.e. Rs. 12,09,862/- with 9% interest from date of purchase till realization.
- To pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for deficiency in services and adopting unfair trade practice which caused tension, harassment, and mental agony to the complainant.
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The OP1 and OP3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the above said amount to the complainant.
This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Copy of the order be supplied/ sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
File be consigned to record room
