BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 165 of 2020
Date of Institution: 24.07.2020
Date of Decision : 08.09.2023
Dr. Kapil Kumar Sidana aged about 43 years son of Shri Ramesh Chander Sidana, resident of 169, ITI Road, Gandhi Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. through its Managing Director, 2nd & 6th Floor, Corporate one (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi- 110025.
2. Raja M Hyundai (Authorized Dealer of Hyundai Cars) through its Managing Director, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…….PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 14.04.2016 complainant had purchased a Hyundai Make I20 Sportz 1.4 DSL BSIV white colour Car manufactured by op no.1 from op no.2 and was got registered vide registration No. HR-24W/0370. That in the month of May-June, 2020 the complainant was surprised to see that all of a sudden the body paint of the vehicle on the tail box was getting peeled off even on touching with finger nail or by air/ water pressure. The complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of ops and disclosed the above said fact to the workshop manager who after observing the vehicle requested him to leave the vehicle at workshop for checking and inspection and to remove the defect and stated that it is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle which requires paint. It is further averred that complainant left the vehicle at the workshop and a few days later he surprisingly received information that tail box as well as the front bonnet of the vehicle has also been repainted by the workshop. That on being asked, the Workshop Manager of the ops told that the bonnet paint was also getting peeled off with air pressure, hence it has also been repainted and astonishingly this work was done by ops without the consent and prior intimation to the complainant which amounts to cheating with the complainant and is also negligence in providing after sale services. The Workshop Manager of ops gave a written apology to complainant in Police Station City Sirsa in this regard. It is further averred that peeling off of the paint in this manner firstly from the tail box and thereafter on the bonnet clearly shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the body paint of the vehicle and it may be peeled off from other body parts also with the passage of time and further there is no assurance that same will not be repeated in future. The complainant wants to get the vehicle replaced because such type of repainting has reduced the market value of the vehicle and otherwise also it is not acceptable for a person spending lacs of rupees on purchase of vehicle to have a vehicle with manufacturing defect in it. That complainant has been mentally harassed by the ops and their workmen in this regard time and again and they have also failed to provide a standard of service to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant contacted at the dealership of ops time and again for replacement of the vehicle but no response has been received by complainant and act and conduct of ops clearly shows their gross negligence and non cooperation on their parts amounts to fraudulent behavior and same is also in violation of statutory duties of ops and makes them liable to bear the consequences for the same. That complainant got served a legal notice to the ops on 20.06.2020 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complainant has failed to substantiate any allegations raised against answering op in the present complaint and it has been wrongfully alleged by complainant that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect and complainant wrongfully demands the replacement of the vehicle. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the workshop has repainted the tail box as well as the front bonnet and has removed the defect complained. That complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that complaint is barred by limitation as limitation has to be reckoned from the date of purchase of the vehicle and not from date of the defect and that complainant is not a consumer qua answering op in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and that complaint is liable to be dismissed qua answering op on the sole ground that liability of answering op is limited to performance of car and since complainant has not raised any allegations regarding performance of the car, no deficiency can be attributed to the answering op. It is further submitted that vehicle in question was being driven continuously and as of now vehicle has covered extensive mileage of 62,756 kms as on 04.06.2020 which could not have been possible if vehicle has manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant. That service history of the vehicle is suffice to showcase the negligence of complainant in proper upkeep of the subject vehicle. The subject vehicle was not reported for periodic maintenance service as mentioned in the owner’s manual of vehicle and same was ought to be reported for second free service after the running mileage of 10000 kms but in the present case complainant kept dragging the vehicle till 19416 kms without carrying out periodic service. Further more, the said vehicle was last reported for periodic maintenance service after driving the same for more than 20000 kms. It is further submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the owner’s manual that periodic maintenance service ought to be carried out after each 10000 kms. That complainant has not disclosed the fact that subject vehicle is already out of warranty and as per information received from the dealer being a customer centric organization the affected parts of the vehicle were repainted on goodwill basis and at no cost, but it was complainant who did not come forward for the same and filed this frivolous complaint with ulterior motive to get replacement of four years old vehicle which has already covered the mileage of 68625 kms. as on 08.08.2020 without any performance issues. It is further submitted that complaint has been filed in contravention of Section 38 (2) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and admittedly neither any expert opinion is placed on record by complainant nor there is nothing on record to even prima facie suggest that vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, complaint is hopelessly time barred and estoppal etc. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had brought his vehicle to the workshop of the answering op for conducting some repairs. The answering op as per the directions of the complainant had conducted repairs on the car of complainant and after that he had taken delivery of the same while fully satisfying himself with the repairs conducted by answering op. However, thereafter the complainant out of malafide intention made a false police complaint against the answering op. The police while taking the official of answering op under pressure and duress had obtained the signatures of the official of the answering op on some papers and now the complainant on the basis of same has filed this complaint while concealing and suppressing all the true and material facts from this Commission. It is further submitted that vehicle of complainant was within warranty period and therefore, the complainant was not charged for the repairs conducted on his vehicle. The allegation of repainting the bonnet of the car is totally false and baseless and has been leveled by the complainant out of malafide intention to extract money from answering op. There was no manufacturing defect in the car of the complainant. The complainant had actually purchased the car in 2016 and repairs were conducted by answering op in 2020 and complainant never complained about any manufacturing defect in the said car to the answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.
6. On the other hand op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Hemant Makkar, Deputy Manager, Legal & Secretarial as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Deepak, Accountant as Ex.R4 and copies of documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R9.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file.
9. Admittedly on 14.04.2016 the complainant had purchased the car in question from op no.1 as is evident from copy of delivery challan placed on file by complainant as Ex.C2. The complainant has alleged that in the month of May/ June, 2020, the complainant was surprised to see that all of a sudden the body paint of the vehicle on the tail box was getting peeled off even on touching with finger nail or by air/ water pressure. The complainant has further alleged that complainant took the vehicle at the workshop of ops upon which the Workshop Manager asked him to leave the vehicle at workshop for checking and inspection and to remove the defect and he also stated that it is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle which requires repaint. The complainant has further alleged that after few days he received information from workshop that tail box as well as front bonnet of the vehicle has also been repainted by the workshop and on being asked about this, the Manager of the ops told that bonnet paint was also getting peeled off with air pressure so same has also been repainted but this work was done by ops without the consent and prior intimation to the complainant and peeling off the paint firstly from the tail box and thereafter on the bonnet clearly shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the body paint of the vehicle and as such complainant has sought replacement of the vehicle with a new one. But however, the complainant has failed to prove on record that peeling off paint from the body of the vehicle was only due to any manufacturing defect and not for any reason. The vehicle in question was purchased by complainant on 14.04.2016 and paint started peeling off only after four years in the month of May/ June, 2020. The service record of the vehicle produced on record by op no.1 as Ex.R3 reveals that complainant got service of the vehicle done on 13.05.2017 when the vehicle had run 19416 Kms. whereas as per warranty policy of the ops, the vehicle was to be serviced at the running mileage of 1000 kms. It is also proved on record that thereafter the vehicle was brought for service in the workshop of ops when it had run 31990 Kms. whereas according to the ops as per owner’s manual the periodic maintenance service ought to be carried out after each 10000 kms and as such it is proved on record that no periodic maintenance of the vehicle was being got done by complainant in time as per owner’s manual. Further more, on 26.04.2018 when the vehicle had covered 31990 kms, the vehicle was brought in the workshop of ops for accidental repair as is evident from document Ex.R3. It is also proved on record that on 08.08.2020 the vehicle had run 68625 kms. which could not have been possible if vehicle was having any manufacturing defect. If there had been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the paint of the vehicle should have been peeled off at early stage and not after four years. So complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle rather it appears that peeling off paint was due to improper maintenance and due to accident of the vehicle. The document Ex.C4 i.e. written apology of Workshop Manager of ops relied upon by complainant is not helpful to the complainant because complainant has failed to prove on record through any expert opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and repainting of the bonnet of the vehicle which was done as per guidelines of the company does not make entitle the complainant for replacement of the vehicle for the above said reason for improper maintenance of the vehicle and vehicle has already met with accident and as such peeling off paint of vehicle may be due to accident of the vehicle.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 08.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
