(Passed this on 13th October, 2017)
Shri. S.P. Muley, President –
1. This is a complaint of deficiency in service in respect of manufacturing defect against the Opposite Parties (OPs).
2. The O.P.1 is an authorized dealer of Hyundai cars, the O.P. 2 is a company of Hyundai Motors having registered office and factory at the given address, O.P.3 is marketing and sale headquarters of said company, O.P.4 is Regional office of the company and O.P.5 is an insurance company. The complainant purchased a Hyundai i20 CRDI car on 22/10/2012 from the O.P.1 having registration no. MH-31-EA-6079. Soon after purchase the complainant noticed fogging on the glass of left side headlamp. Initially it was ignored by him, but gradually the problem increased. So he took the car to O.P.1 on 5/1/2013. It was informed that inner side of left head lamp had some cracks and it was due to accident. Hence he was advised to get it repaired at his own cost or through insurance. But there was no accident to the car and so he contacted the OPs 2 to 4 through customer care website and explained to them about unsatisfactory service of the O.P.1. He was assured that the problem would be sorted out, but no action was taken. Ultimately as advised by the O.P.1, he contacted the O.P.5 and inquired whether such defect was covered under the policy. The O.P.5 informed him the defect was not covered under the policy.
3. The complainant is a doctor by profession and sometimes he has to go out of station to attend to his patients. For that purpose he had purchased the car but due the problem in the headlamp he found it risky and difficult to drive the car in night. He has therefore suffered loss. Hence he has prayed that the OPs be directed to reimburse the price of the car with 18% interest or to compensate him by Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental and agony and damage.
4. The O.P.1 fild reply denying any deficiency in service on its part. Admitting that the complainant purchased the car from it, it is denied soon thereafter a problem in the left headlight was noticed. On the contrary the car was brought to it for first servicing on 8/11/2012 after the car had run 1214 Kms. That time the complainant did not raise any such complaint. It was on 5/1/2013 first time he complained of headlamp. On inspection some crack was found inside the lamp and he was told, it could have been due to some minor impact. He was also told to get the headlamp replaced on his own cost or through insurance. But he said there was no accident to the car. It is denied it advised him to contact the OP5. Thus denying its liability, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The OPs 2 to 4 filed reply and denied all allegations against them. It is stated a new brand car was delivered to the complainant without any defects. The alleged problem of fogging was noticed after 3 months of purchase. Their liability is restricted to warranty of a vehicle. There was no manufacturing defect in the car. The car had run 41,832 Kms till July 2014 and it could not have been possible had there been any problem in the headlight as alleged. It is further stated on inspection of the headlight it was noticed that due to external impact there were cracks inside the headlight and accidental repair work can be done on chargeable basis or through insurance. There is no question of replacement of the car. It is thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The O.P.5 in its reply stated that as per the complaint the defect was a manufacturing defect and it is not covered under the policy. Denying the allegations of deficiency in service and all other averments, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. We have heard Ld counsels for the complainant and O.P.5. None appeared for the OPs 2 to 4. perused documents. Our findings are recorded for the reasons given below.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
8. It should first be clarified that as per the averments in the complaint, the alleged defect in the headlight is said to be a manufacturing defect. It is specifically stated that the car never met with an accident and so there was no question of any external cause for developing such defect in the headlight. If that being the case of the complainant, the insurance company i.e. O.P.5 is not liable to indemnify the damage. A manufacturing defect is not covered under insurance contract. Therefore the O.P.5 requires to be absolved from the complaint. So is the case with the O.P.1, who is a dealer of cars manufactured by the OPs 2 to 4. The dealer has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the goods and therefore cannot be held liable for manufacturing defects found in the car.
9. So far as the defect is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the left side headlight had some problem. When the headlight unit was opened it was found that there were cracks in the inner side of the headlight. Even the O.P.5 has also informed him that the surveyor had examined the car and stated the defect was not due to any accident but it was a material defect. There is copy of repair order which shows the problem of fog in the headlight was mentioned to the O.P.1 on 5/1/2013. There is no evidence that the car had any accident due to which the inner side of the headlight developed cracks. Therefore it has to be accepted that the defect was a manufacturing defect. No expert evidence is necessary to prove this fact.
10. The OPs 2 to 4 being the different offices of the manufacturing unit of Hyundai Motors are therefore jointly liable to make good the defect. It is not necessary to replace the entire car, as the unit of defective headlight can be replaced with new one. The liability is of the OPs 2 to 4 only. The complaint against the OPs 1 and 5, as stated before, is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is a doctor and is required to go outstation to attend his patients. He must have faced difficulties in driving such car of which headlight was not proper. Hence he is entitled to be compensated suitably.
Hence the following order.
ORDER
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The OPs 2 to 4, jointly and severally, are directed to replace the defective left side headlight with new one of the car No. MH-31-EA-6079 of the complainant.
3. The OPs 2 to 4 shall, jointly and severally, pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and for litigation cost.
4. The order shall be complied within 30 days from receipt of the order.
5. The complaint is dismissed against the O.P. 1 and 5.
6. The copy of order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
