DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.542/2021

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this Judgment the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service by OPs i.e. OP1 in selling defective vehicle and OP2 in not repairing the vehicle properly.   

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that complainant visited the workshop of OP2 on 17.04.2019 with the complaint that AC of his car having registration number TL8CU3030 was not working properly and OP2 got the problem fixed and assured that problem has been rectified and it charged Rs.650/- from the complainant which was paid, however, when the complainant was driving the vehicle he realized that AC is still not working and he approached the OP2 again and informed about non-working of the AC to which OP told him to bring the car back as per his convenience.  He accordingly visited the OP2 again, on 30.04.2019 and after a brief checkup the complainant was told by OP2 that the entire AC machinery needs replacement which would incur an expenses of Rs.39,000/- to which complainant was quite flabbergasted as no such observation was given on 17.04.2019 when the complainant visited the office of OP2 for the first time but having left with no option the complainant agreed for replacement of the AC machinery and agreed to the illegal demand of Rs.39,000/- and left the car with OP2 on 30.04.2019 which was returned to him on 05.05.2019 and OP2 raised the bill of Rs.45,480/- to which he was quite astonished as the expenses were told to be Rs.39,000/- only and the bill so raised was quite inflated and when confronted about this aspect, the OP2 informed that the damage to the AC was severe and was more than what was expected.  It is further stated that he requested the OP to show him the damaged parts removed from his car but his request was turned down on the pretext that damaged parts were lying in the workshop and further on the request of one of the employee of OP2 namely Sh. Purushottam Gaur the complainant had also filled up the customer satisfaction form with good comments.  It is also submitted that when the car was handed over to the OP2 there was no problem in the Air Bags nor the indicator was showing any such error in the Dashboard but when the complainant left from the service centre of OP2, he noticed that there is error in Air Bags indicator on the Dashboard which was constantly indicating some malfunctioning in the Air Bags and he accordingly called up the OP2’s Supervisor namely Sh. Parveen Singh where after he was told that he will get the car picked up from the resident of the complainant and would fix the problem and on 07.05.2019 the car was picked up by the employee of OP2 and was got at his residence but the problem of indicator on dashboard w.r.t. error in Air Bags was still persisting and it is further stated that it seemed to the complainant that OP2 had no intention to rectify the problem of error in Air Bags and the Air Bags have been purposely damaged by the OP2 for further extortion of money from the complainant and similarly OP2 might have replaced the functional AC part of the complainant with damaged one to extort a sum of Rs.45,480/-.  It is further stated that on account of certain injury to his son the complainant could not visit the OP for sometime but he had been continuously interacting with Mr. Purushottam Gaur, to whom, even the screen shot of error in Air Bags was sent and he ultimately he visited the OP2 on 05.07.2019 and once again his car was picked up on 06.07.2019 but problem of error in Air Bags was still persisting.  The complaint continued to raise the complainant and his car was again taken up on 13.07.2019 for rectifying/ replacement of the Air Bags Module and was sent back on 16.07.2019 but complainant noticed that Air Bags sign was still appearing on the dashboard of the car.  The General Manager of OP2 also kept assuring that OP2 is in constant touch with OP1 and is trying to get approval for the removal of defect w.r.t. the indicator but despite the OP2’s Manager assuring nothing was done and when the complainant told the OP2 to rectify the said defect the OP2 demanded an appalling amount of Rs.90,000/- for the same which was not only shocking but was unreasonable demand from the OP2 and it is further stated that OP2 appears to have extorted a sum of Rs.45,480/- earlier from the complainant on the pretext of changing the AC parts and now he is trying to extort a sum of Rs.90,000/- on account of change of Air Bags and Module which act of the OP2 amounts to illegal extortion and deficiency in service and accordingly he demanded Rs.45,480/- from complainant alleging that he has wrongfully charged that amount from the complainant and even has damaged Air Bags but OP2 did not respond and as such he served a legal notice upon the OPs which was not complied with and as such he has filed the present complaint praying that OPs be directed to refund Rs.45,480/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. and also direct the OPs to pay Rs.91,820/- on account of proposed expenses towards Air Bags Module, Labour Cost with interest @ 18% p.a. and suitable compensation with litigation cost. 
2. OPs were served and OP1 has filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint against OP1 is not maintainable as there is not even a single averment/contention or allegation by the complainant in the entire complaint against OP1, there is no prima facie case against OP1 for alleged deficiency, complaint has been filed with ulterior motives on false and frivolous grounds against OP1, complainant has not come to Commission with clean hands rather has come by concealing the material facts. OP1 is neither necessary party in the matter nor any allegation has been levelled against it alleging deficiency and the entire complaint revolves around the OP2, and further there is no privity of contract in between complainant and OP1 and therefore complaint against OP1 be dismissed. 
3. On merits it is specifically denied that complainant is a consumer of OP1 in the facts and circumstances as explained in the complaint and it is further stated that contents of para 4 to 25 and para 27 to 32 do not relate to the OP1 and there are no allegations as far as para 26 of complaint is concerned there is no allegation against OP1 and it is accordingly prayed that complaint of the complainant against OP1 be dismissed. 
4. OP2 has also filed its written statement. The OP2 has taken the preliminary objection that the present complaint case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on various grounds interalia that the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, complainant has not come to court with clean hands, the complainant presented incorrect version and has attempted to misguide and mislead the Commission.  Complaint has been filed with ulterior motives to pressurise and extort money from OP2, complainant is not a consumer of OP2 nor there was any deficiency of service on the part of answering respondent i.e. OP2.  It is explained that the complainant had got his vehicle to the service centre of OP2 with the complaint of late starting of AC, which was attended to, by technical staff who recommended for replacement of AC system to which complainant refused however, the parts were cleaned and service was done and a bill of Rs.649/- was raised which was paid by complainant.  The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle and job card clearly indicates that recommendation was made on 17.04.2019 for replacement of AC system.  The complainant then visited on 30.04.2019 and stated that he is ready to handover the vehicle for AC replacement if discount is provided and accordingly complainant handed over the vehicle and job card was issued, approval was taken and sufficient discount to the extent of 20% on labour charges and 7% on spare parts was given to the complainant and a bill of Rs.45,480/- was raised and complainant took the delivery of the vehicle and before taking the delivery he himself thoroughly checked the vehicle, took the test drive by checking the functioning of AC and signed satisfactory notes by giving 10 out of 10 points in most of the columns and bill was verified by the complainant and he made the payment.  A few days later after taking the delivery, the complainant made the complaint w.r.t. Air Bags’ indicators on dashboard and service centre of OP2 sent a helpline technician on 10.05.2019 to check the problem, the vehicle was picked up from the residence of the complainant in the evening of 10.05.2019 at 06:25 PM.  The job card was opened on next day i.e. on 11.05.2019 and service centre made a call to the complainant telling that Air Bags’ indicators remains on, as there was wiring in connections which were checked, error code was removed through diagnostic tools and no amounts was charged from complainant.  The complainant made complaint again on 17.05.2019, the vehicle was again thoroughly checked up, step by step, and it was found that there was short circuit in the clock spring and estimate of Rs.2000/- was given to rectify the fault but the complainant refused to pay the same and clock spring was replaced, free of cost and then after about 40 days on 25.06.2019 the customer again telephoned the service centre that Air Bags’ indicators was again occurring.  The technician was sent again to remove the error code but complainant called again on 06.07.2019 for same problem.  The car was picked up again and was thoroughly checked and it was found that Air Bags were worn out which would have been on account of short circuit in clock spring.  It is further stated that Air Bags in the vehicle are an inbuilt feature and for replacement of the same special approval with proper documentation was required.  The complainant also approached higher authorities i.e. OP1 alleging that the fault in the Air Bags has occurred due to replacement in the AC system.  The complainant was again told to send the vehicle so that service centre may take help of Hyundai Motors i.e. OP1 for satisfaction of the complainant but the complainant misbehaved with the officials of the OP2 and refused to provide the vehicle and even threatened the top management of OP2.  It is further stated that as per record maintained by OP1 the vehicle was purchased in the year 2010 and the same was brought to the authorised service centre of OP1 in 2011 and then in 2014 and after 2014 the vehicle was brought to the service centre of OP2 only in the year 2019 for the first time, the vehicle was 9 year old when the same was brought to the service centre of OP2 and as such all the facts stated in the complaint are false. 
5. On merits the contents of preliminary objection are reiterated and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed against OP2. 
6. Complainant has filed Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs and has denied the contents of the written statement and has reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the complaint. 
7. Complainant has filed his own evidence whereas OP1 has filed the evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Nitin Kumar Gupta, legal secretary and OP2 has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar, General Manager of OP2.
8. The complainant as well as OPs have filed their written arguments. 
9. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
10. In nutshell the complaint of the complainant is that he went to the OP2 for some problem in the AC in April 2019 which problem was rectified by the OP2 but since the problem of AC continued he visited again the OP2 who told that AC system has to be replaced to which complainant consented on the assurance that it would cost around Rs39,000/- but actually when the bill was raised it was raised for Rs.45,480/- which amounts to overcharging and when the car was taken back by the complainant the car started showing on the dashboard that Air Bags are faulty and when this complaint was raised by the complainant to the OP2 this problem was not fixed by OP2 despite visiting thrice and it appears to the complainant that the OP2 has even fabricated and forged the documents w.r.t. AC and fraudulently charged to Rs.45,480/- from the complainant and then the OP2 intentionally has damaged the Air Bags so as to extort another amount of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service by the OP2 and therefore OP2 is liable to refund the amount and OP1 being the manufacturer of the Car is also liable for refund of the amount.  The contention of OP1 on the other hand is quite simple that no deficiency in service at the end of OP1 has been mentioned in the entire complaint, no consideration has been paid by the complainant to OP1, there is no privity of contract in between complainant and OP1 and no manufacturing defect has been alleged and therefore complaint  of the complainant against OP1 is liable to be dismissed. 
11. The contention of the OP2 on the other hand is that the vehicle was 9 year old at the time when it was brought to the service centre in April 2019, the complainant was told to let the AC system replaced which was not adhered to by complainant and after making preliminary corrections, bill of Rs.650/- was raised but since the complainant again made a complaint w.r.t. AC system, he was advised for the replacement of AC system to which he agreed , necessary repairs were done and bill of Rs.45,480/- was raised by explaining that damages in the AC system were severe and more than what was expected in an first overview and infact there is no allegation of not proper functioning of AC thereafter.  The complaint of the complainant is based on false allegations and presumptions that OP2 might have damaged the AC system and that too with intention to extort another amount of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant and it is stated that such malfunctioning of Air Bags is only on account of the internal Air Bags system and OP2 even has changed once the clock spring free of cost.  The other contention raised by OP2 is that there is no evidence on record that Air Bags’ fault is on account of malfunctioning of AC as repaired by the OP2 and the case of the complainant is only based on the surmises and presumptions. 
12. The Commission is adverting to all these contentions one by one and firstly coming to the contentions of OP1.  Admittedly, in the entire complaint there is not even a single allegation against OP1 as to what is the fault or deficiency on the part of OP1 if OP2, its authorised service centre has allegedly not repaired the vehicle.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant against OP1 is dismissed being non-disclosure of any cause of action against OP1. 
13. Now, coming to the contentions of the OP2.  In the entire complaint after the replacement of AC system, no allegation has been raised by the complainant that the AC was not working properly.  This interalia means that the AC system which was replaced by the OP2 was not having any deficiency after its replacement. 
14. The next contentions of complainant is that by telling that AC replacement system would cost around Rs.39,000/- a bill of Rs.45,480/- has been raised.  The explanation given by the OP2 is that damage was severe and more than what was expected.  The Commission is of the opinion that this charging of Rs.45,480/- has been duly explained by the OP2 when the proper invoice has been issued.  To counter that there is overcharging no documents has been placed on record by the complainant to show that the OP2 has overcharged the amounts therefore in the opinion of this Commission orally informing the complainant that the cost of system would be around Rs.39,000/- and then charging Rs.48,480/- cannot be termed as deficiency in service or overcharging the complainant. 
15. Now the third contention of the complainant is that once the AC system was replaced he observed that the indicator of Air Bags is on from the day when the car was handed over to the complainant on 05.05.2019 and this fault has occurred only after, when the OP2 has replaced the AC system and he has further argued that when the car was handed over to the OP2 there was no such error observed by the OP2 w.r.t. Air Bags and this has happened only caused because of wrongful handling of the car by the OP2. 
16. The Commission is of the opinion that this contention would have been appreciated in much better way if an opinion of the expert would have come on record.  Neither the complainant has made any effort to prove by way of opinion of expert that this fault is only on account of mishandling by OP2 by replacing/rectifying the AC system.  The OP2 in his arguments has contended that the Air Bags’ System in the Car has an inbuilt system and it has nothing to do with the AC replacement system and since it was a 9 year old car normal wear and tear would have taken place but the contention of OP2 is also not supported with any technical/ expert opinion.  The onus to prove that this defect has occurred on account of mishandling by OP2 was upon the complainant and was to be discharged by examining the expert or by getting the vehicle inspected through expert but complainant has failed to obtain such opinion.  Further, the apprehension of the complainant is to merely on the presumption/ guess as he contends that the OP2 has even extorted an amount of Rs.45,480/- fraudulently as there was no need to replace the AC system and similarly  he is trying to extort another amount of Rs.90,000/- approx. by telling that the Air Bags and Module system is faulty.  It is also matter of record that the AC system which was not working properly earlier in April 2019- May 2019 has been replaced by the OP2 and there is no allegation against OP2 w.r.t. the fact that AC system was not working properly thereafter and therefore the presumption of the complainant that OP2 has charged an amount of Rs.45,480/- fraudulently or has extorted the amount is not well found and similarly in absence of the opinion of an expert w.r.t. the fact that the dashboard of the car is showing Air Bags are faulty on the dash board have not been proved by the complainant through an expert opinion. 
17. The Commission has enquired from the counsel for OP2 that if there was no sign on the dashboard indicating faulty Air Bags prior to taking the vehicle in possession on 30.04.2019 then how this has happened when the car was returned back to the complainant to which Ld. Counsel for OP has argued that once the car was taken from the service centre by the complainant this was not on the dashboard as per record and there is no document on record that the complainant has informed the OP on the same day while driving that car.  This information was given by the complainant w.r.t. Air Bags light after few days of taking the delivery and thereafter service centre of OP2 had sent the helpline technician on 10.05.2019 to check the problem as to how this problem has occurred.  However same cannot be correlated with the change /replacement of AC system and even once the clock spring was replaced free of cost and thereafter the next complaint was made after about 40 days. 
18. The Commission is of the opinion that even if some problem has occurred immediately or even within few days of getting the car AC system repaired/replaced, it could have been appreciated in much better way if there would have been any opinion of the expert.  Therefore Commission is of the opinion that complainant has not been able to prove any correlation w.r.t. showing the indicator of Air Bags are faulty on the dashboard with replacement of the AC system.  The complaint of the complainant therefore is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 22.12.2023.