Haryana

Kurukshetra

121/2018

Amritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kaushalaya Huandai - Opp.Party(s)

Rajender Kaur

14 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.121 of 2018

Date of Instt.:29.05.2018

Date of Decision: 14.02.2022.

 

 Amritpal Singh aged about 22 years, son of Balwinder Singh resident of village Pathan Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala.                                                                   

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

 

1.Kaushalya Hyundai, KBD Road, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.

2.Hyundai Motor India Limited, Corporate One Baani Building, Plot No.5, Jasola, New Delhi 110025.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

 

 

Present:     Sh.Shweta Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh. Karan Tanwar  Advocate for OP No.1.

                Sh.B.S.Virk, Advocate for OP No.2.

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Amritpal against Hyundai etc., the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant the complainant purchased one Car i.e. Hyundai i20 Model Asta CRDi from OP No.1.on 4.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.8,31,771/-  vide invoice No.412 dated 4.11.2017. The car of the complainant was allotted registration No. PB-11-CJ-3005. At the time of sale, the car was sold as brand new Car without any defect therein.  It is further averred that on 2.2.2018 when the complainant parked his car in bus stand Dudhan  Sadha, some vehicle or animal damaged the car of the complainant and there was dent in the left side afender (Mud Guard) and there were scratches on the front Bumper of the car. The complainant took the car for the repair at Hyundai Showroom, Rajpura Road, Patiala on 9.02.2018 where the foreman told that these parts had already been repaired and are not original. When the complainant took the car to the workshop of OP, Sushil Chauhan told that nothing can be done  in this respect and he referred the complaint to General Manager of the OP but the General Manager refused to do anything in the matter and he was not able to satisfy the complainant.  The complainant then got the car checked from Shiv Motor Garage, Pehowa Road, Channa Morh, Devigarh District Patiala, who also  reported that the afendor of the car has already been repainted.  The complainant made a complaint to SHO, PS Julkan, District Patiala but nothing was done. The complainant has got issued legal notice dated 17.3.2018 to the OOP but OP did not do anything and no reply of the legal notice was given. Thus, such an act on the part of OP amounts to  deficiency in services and the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to replace the car of the complainant with a new brand car and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses. He has also filed affidavit in support of the averments made in the present complaint.

 

2.             Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant purchased a car as stated by him from OP No.1 and the car was a new brand one. The car was very well checked and  verified by the complainant at the time of its delivery. The complaint as alleged by the complainant has been denied for want of knowledge.  The parts of the car have not been  repainted and all the parts were original at the time of delivery. It is submitted that the story put forwarded by the complainant has been concocted one  to blackmail and harass the answering OP No.1. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and preliminary objections regarding  maintainability and jurisdiction have been raised.

 

 

3.             The OP No.2  filed its separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that as per record available, a new car bearing VIN No. MALBM51RLHM412237  was sold to Amrit Pal Singh by M/s Kaushalya Hyundai Kurukshetra OP No.1. It is submitted that the aspect of the retail sale is strictly interse the complainant and concerned selling dealer. HIMIL (OP No.2) is not party to such  transaction/undertaking. Liability of HMIL (OP No.2) extends and is limited to warranty 9obliections, strictly as per warranty policy. It is  pertinent to mention that no money from the  transaction was paid to OP No.2. Moreover, complainant has himself stated in this complaint that he had paid money to OP No.1  and not HMIL (OP NO.2). It  further submitted that the car suffered from any manufacturing defect and complainant be put to strict roof of the same. While denying all other allegations, OP No.2 took the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties and the complainant has concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint. It is also submitted that the OP No.2 operates all its dealers including OP No.1 on principal to principal basis and not on “ Principal to Agent, basis thereby meaning that error/omission/mis representation etc. if any at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sold  responsibility of the concerned dealer and has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed  affidavit
Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and C-3(a) and closed his evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OP No.1 in support of  its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex./R13 and closed the evidence of OP No.1.

 

                The OP No.2 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex/.RW2/A and tendered documents Ex.R14 and Ex.R15 and closed its evidence.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant  has argued that the complainant  had purchased one Car i.e. Hyundai i20 Model Asta CRDi from OP No.1.on 4.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.8,31,771/-  vide invoice No.412 dated 4.11.2017. The car of the complainant was allotted registration No. PB-11-CJ-3005. At the time of sale, the car was sold as brand new Car without any defect therein.  It is further argued  that on 2.2.2018  when the complainant parked his car in bus stand Dudhan  Sadha, some vehicle or animal damaged the car of the complainant and there was dent in the left side afender (Mud Guard) and there were scratches on the front Bumper of the car. The complainant took the car for the repair at Hyundai Showroom, Rajpura Road, Patiala on 9.02.2018 where the foreman told that these parts had already been repaired and are not original. When the complainant took the car to the workshop of OP, Sushil Chauhan told that nothing can be done  in this respect and he referred the complaint to General Manager of the OP but the General Manager refused to do anything in the matter and he was not able to satisfy the complainant.  The complainant then got the car checked from Shiv Motor Garage, Pehowa Road, Channa Morh, Devigarh District Patiala, who also  reported that the afendor of the car has already been repainted. He has further argued that complaints were made but nothing was done and as such there is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and has sought replacement of the car with a new one and compensation.

 

7.     The learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the submissions made in their respective written statements  have  argued that the complainant purchased a car as stated by him from OP No.1 and the car was a new brand one. The car was very well checked and verified by the complainant at the time of its delivery. The complaint as alleged by the complainant has been denied for want of knowledge.  The parts of the car have not been repainted and all the parts were original at the time of delivery. It is thus argued  that the story put forwarded by the complainant has been concocted  one to blackmail and harass the answering OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

8.             After hearing  the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  As per own case of the complainant he had purchased the vehicle in question on 4.11.2017 and his car was damaged by some vehicle or animal on 2.2.2018  after about three months. He took the vehicle to workshop and found that the afender (Mud Guard) of the car was found dent.  The foreman of the OP No.2 told that these parts had already been  repainted.  He got checked the vehicle from Shiv Motor Garage, Pehowa Road, Channa Morh Devigarh Distt. Patiala and the officials of the said Shiv Motors also told that the afender (Mud Guard) of the car had already been repainted. The burden is upon the  complainant to prove his case. The complainant has failed to prove that afender (Mud Guard) of the car was already dented. No expert report to prove this fact has been placed on the file. The complainant has relied upon the report Ex.C-3 issued by Pawan Kuamr son of Sh.Shyam Lal. However, he has stated that afender (Mud Guard) of the car was already dented but this report cannot be relied upon because said Pawan Kumar has not disclosed about his qualification, whether he is diploma holder in mechanical engineering or otherwise. Moreover, before delivery of the vehicle at the show room, it is always got verified by the customers. Therefore, in  the absence of any expert report it cannot be accepted that the parts of the  car were already dented. Therefore, no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is established and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open  Commission.

Dated:14.02.2022.                                                       President.

 

                                        Member.            Member.