Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/152/2017

Hyundai Motor India Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jitender Kumar Verma - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Gupta, Adv.

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	152 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	31.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	15.12.2017

 

1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., having its Office at 5^th Floor, Corporate one (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Regional Office North, Chandigarh.     

             …..Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Versus

1. Jitender Kumar Verma, S/o Shri S. K. Verma, R/o House No.331/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2. KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002 through its Managing Director Karan Grover.

                      ….. Respondent/Opposite Party No.3.

Argued by:

Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Vijay Mangla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2

 

Appeal No.	:	168 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	23.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	15.12.2017

Jitender Verma S/o Sh. S. K. Verma, R/o House No.331/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. Hyundai India Motor Ltd., Registered Office and Factory, Kanchipuram, Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District Tamil Nadu-602117, through Mr.Bo Shin Seo, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.
2. Hyundai India Motor Ltd., Regional Office-I, DLF Building, Tower-B, 3rd Floor, RGCT Park, Chandigarh 160101, through Mr. Abhinav Narula Regional Sales Manager.
3. KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002, through its Managing Director Karan Grover.

                  …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

Sh. Vijay Mangla, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                   Vide this common order, we are disposing of aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.152 of 2017 filed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and No.168 of 2017 filed by the complainant, against the order dated 09.03.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.325 of 2015 filed by the complainant was allowed against the Opposite Parties, in the following manner:-

14]      From the above observations, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved, as a result the complainant has suffered a lot, thus, he is also entitled to be adequately compensated. Therefore, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against OPs.  The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-

[a]     To issue all necessary documents in favour of the complainant as well as to the Registering Authority concerned and provide full assistance, enabling to get the engine number of newly installed engine, incorporated in the  registration certificate  of the vehicle in question and also to bear the expenses thereof, if any;

[b]      To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment caused due to deficient act of the Opposite Parties as well as towards the depreciation of a brand new vehicle;

[c]      To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-;

          The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount as at sub–para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para [c] above.”

2.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a brand new Hyundai Grand i10 1.2 GLS Sportz 1.2 BSIV with Catalyzer Car bearing Chassis No.MALA851CLFM246846*B, Engine No.G4LAFM586971 from Opposite Party No.3, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, on 14.4.2015 by paying Rs.5,12,986/- and it was got insured from National Insurance Company Ltd. valid for the period 14.4.2015 to 13.4.2016.  It was further stated that the said vehicle was got registered with Registration Authority, Chandigarh and the vehicle was allotted Regd.No.CH-01-BB-1484.  It was further stated that the complainant spent Rs.11,278/- on the insurance of the vehicle and Rs.27,880/- on its registration. It was further stated that immediately after its purchase, the vehicle, in question, started giving ignition problem, which was rectified by the Service Centre on 21.5.2015.  It was further stated that when the complainant hardly driven 1.5 kilometer, the vehicle lost its pick up and inspite of pressing the full throttle, the race did not pick-up in any gear. It was further stated that the matter was reported to the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties, who towed away the vehicle.  It was further stated that the complainant on 27.5.2015 was communicated by the Opposite Parties that the engine components need replacement and ultimately, the whole engine of the vehicle was replaced by the Opposite Parties (Ann.C-7).  It was further stated that even after replacement of the engine assembly, the complainant noticed that the problem still subsisted in the vehicle, as such, he again reported the matter to the Opposite Parties.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties again informed the complainant that the replaced engine also required replacement as the same was having same defect and the vehicle was not picking back combustion. It was further stated that thereafter, the complainant on 13.6.2015 sent a communication to the Opposite Parties demanding replacement of the vehicle, or refund of the sale price including the cost of insurance and registration charges, since the vehicle sold was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, which could not be cured despite replacing the whole engine assembly.

3.        It was further stated that the complainant purchased the said vehicle after getting finance of Rs.3 Lacs from HDFC Bank Ltd.  It was further stated that the vehicle had only covered 200 kms. and it encountered with the defect within a month and is lying with the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties since 22.5.2015   for rectification of defects.  It was further stated that as a result, the complainant not only suffered mental     tension as well as professionally and also suffered on account of his work since 22.5.2015 till date. It was further stated that the vehicle was having a latent inherent manufacturing defect as inspite of replacing its engine, the defect could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties. The complainant had lost his patience and confidence in the vehicle, and, as such, does not want to retain the same. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking various reliefs.

4.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant’s concern with respect to poor pick-up had already been resolved under warranty and the vehicle was ready for delivery at the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 since 21.6.2015 but the complainant was not taking delivery of the car despite repeated requests from workshop. It was further stated that to remove all apprehension of the complainant with respect to vehicle, the engine assembly of the vehicle had already been replaced under warranty after obtaining his consent and hence, the complainant’s demand for replacement of the vehicle or refund of price thereof was devoid of any merit.  It was denied that the vehicle, in question, was suffering from latent inherent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.        Counsel for Opposite Party No.3 did not file any written statement and adopted the written statement filed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

6.             The complainant filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and controverted those, contained in written version of the Opposite Parties.

7.          The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Forum allowed the complaint.

9.          Feeling aggrieved, both Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the complainant have filed instant appeals.

10.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

11.       Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate, Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in Appeal bearing No.152 of 2017, stated that the impugned order suffers from complete non-application of mind and the conclusion arrived at by the Forum is based on the averments made by the complainant and there is no evidence on record. She further stated that the Forum failed to appreciate the plea that the appellants offered loaner car to the complainant to ensure that his work did not get affected due to time taken in the repairs. It was further stated that the delay in repair was also attributable to the complainant as the complainant delayed the consent for replacement of engine Assy-Sub. It was further stated that the concern of the complainant with respect to poor pick-up was resolved under warranty and the vehicle was ready for delivery at the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 since 21.06.2015 but the complainant deliberately did not take delivery of the car. Counsel further stated that the obligation of the appellants was to rectify the defect as per warranty policy, if any, found in the vehicle and the same was done by the appellants in accordance with the terms of the warranty. Counsel further stated that as per inspection report, the car of the complainant was not suffering from any manufacturing defect and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and, therefore, the Forum ought not to have fastened the said liability on the appellants. Lastly, a prayer for setting aside the order passed by the Forum has been made.

12.       On the other hand, Sh. Vijay Mangla, Advocate, Counsel for the appellant/complainant, in Appeal bearing No.168 of 2017 stated that compensation in the sum of Rs.1 Lac, awarded by the Forum, on account of harassment, is on the lower side. It was further stated that the Forum also failed to consider the fact that the vehicle had been lying with the Opposite Parties for the last more than 2 years for sheer negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, who are not willing to perform their part as directed by the Forum. It was further stated that though the complainant had given consent for change of engine but the Opposite Parties never and nowhere disclosed that by changing the engine, the engine number would also change. The complainant, in his appeal, has prayed to enhance the compensation amount from Rs.1 Lac to Rs.2 Lacs and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation for filing the appeal; extension of warranty of the vehicle.

13.       It may be stated here that during arguments, Counsel for the complainant stated that possession of the vehicle, in question, was taken over by the complainant and the Registration Authority has also incorporated the correct engine number of the replaced engine in the Certificate of Registration. In view of statement made, the grievance of the complainant that due to change of the engine of the vehicle, in question, and because of non-supply of the requisite documents by the Opposite Parties in regard to the change of engine number, it became very difficult for him to get the same registered with correct engine number, stands redressed.

14.       The mere fact that change of engine was required, confirms the fact that there was inherent defect in the same (engine). It is also a fact that for the purpose of change of engine, the vehicle remained with Opposite Party No.3 and the complainant was deprived of use of the same. It is, however, a fact that the complainant was offered a loaner vehicle vide email dated 17.06.2015 (page 43 of the District Forum record). The contents of the said email read as under:-

“This is in regard to the above mentioned subject; we would like to inform you that the process of procuring engine is in progress and we are trying to procure the part at the earliest. Further, we would like to offer you a “Loaner Vehicle” till the time your vehicle is in our premises for the necessary repairs as told by your good self so that your daily routine work will not suffer.”

 

There was, thus, clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complainant was deprived of using the vehicle for considerable period of time. The vehicle remained with Opposite Party No.3 till 26.08.2017 and possession thereof was taken by the complainant during the pendency of the appeal. The complainant, however, could take the vehicle after replacement of engine and delay is partly attributable to him. In view of deficiency, as discussed above, on the part of the Opposite Parties, compensation in the sum of Rs.1 Lac, granted by the Forum, is perfectly justified.

15.       As regards argument of the complainant (appellant in appeal No.168 of 2017) qua award of lesser compensation by the Forum, it may be stated here that the Forum, received the expert opinion from PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, which clarified that the vehicle, in question, is now performing well after the change of the engine. In our considered opinion, the Forum rightly held that due to deficient act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had been deprived from usage as well as enjoyment of brand new vehicle, even after spending a huge amount on its purchase and he was put in a miserable state of affairs. The Forum, while fastening liability upon the Opposite Parties, as discussed above, rightly held that the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties was proved and as a result, the complainant had suffered a lot, for which, he was also entitled to be adequately compensated. By awarding compensation on account of harassment caused due to deficient act of the Opposite Parties as well as towards the depreciation of a brand new vehicle, the complainant, in our opinion, has adequately been compensated. Therefore, there is no ground or else justification for enhancing the reliefs/compensation. Therefore, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

16.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

17.        For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing Nos.152 and 168, of 2017, being devoid of merit, are dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

18.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.       Certified copy of this order be also placed in the file of cross appeal bearing No.168 of 2017.

20.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

15.12.2017.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Ad