DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.107/2015
Sh. Arabinda Nag
103, MS Flat, N.W. Motibagh,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
Koncept Hyundai
A-56, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi-110048 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 24.04.15 Date of Order : 15.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased the new car Hyundai EON Magna 1.0 Sleek Silver colour bearing registration No.DL12CK0616 at the total cost of Rs.370467/- from OP. The car was delivered on 31.12.14. After delivery of the car the complainant observed that the car had already run 200 kms prior to its delivery to him. He made a representation/complaint which was personally handed over to the OP on 01.01.15 and he also made several visits at A-56, Kailash Colony with Mr. Tushar Manager Sales and discussed their malpractices and sought clarification on his representation but no action /reply has been received from the OP despite repeated requests. Another observation he found that as per record of Koncept Hyundai his car delivery date was 31.12.14 whereas as per Metro Hyundai at Okhla Phase-I, Nee Delhi’s record, the same car (delivery date was 30.07.14). Immediately, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP and asked for clarification but no reply was received from OP. The complainant registered online complaint at DARPG (Deptt. of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India) on 24.02.15 but no positive response was received. On 27.03.15 the complainant received a call from the OP bearing mobile No. 8750065006 saying that OP’s representative wanted to hold a meeting with the complainant on 1st April, 2015 to resolve the issue. It is submitted that a meeting was held at A-33, Kailash Colony (working premises of the complainant) between customer care executive of OP. Reasons that have been explained by the customer care representative was not acceptable by the complainant. The complainant demanded a punitive compensation of Rs.3,29,304/- for harassment, arrogance, cheating, malpractice. The OP concluded the meeting with saying that they will discuss the matter with their higher ups and will communicate to him through email but no communication was received from them. The complainant was compelled to re-requested DARPG through an email for necessary action. The DARPG advised the complainant to move to the Consumer Court for the redressal of the complainant’s grievance.
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that in the month of January 2015 when the complainant’s car came for repair, no such issue was raised by the complainant. Even in the complaint there is no issue of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and only plea raised is that, as per the invoice of repair order of 15.01.15 the delivery date was shown as 30.07.14 and thus the said vehicle had been twice sold by the company. The said fact is wrong on two counts. The first being that the GDMS, a software of Hyundai shows the delivery date on 31.12.14, which means that the said car was delivered to the complainant for the first time on such date and in the present case it was delivered to the complainant on 31.12.14. Assuming there was some typographical error the same does not mean that the complainant has been sold a second hand car. There is a gap of almost five months as per the complainant between the date of first sale and second sale and the said fact as to whether the sale of the vehicle is first sale or second sale can be ascertained from the office of the RTO whereby it would be clear as to whether the registration of the vehicle has taken place in July 2014 or December, 2014. The complainant made the payments towards the vehicle on 27.12.14 and the same was delivered on 31.12.14 with all the required registration documents. It is submitted that the car runs some kms. on account of testing and coming from the stock yard to the showroom. Moreover, the said fact is further believed from the fact that on 15.01.15 when the complainant had came for accidental repair in the workshop of OP it had travelled 385 kms. Even at that point of time there was no complaint of the complainant to this effect. The delivery date as per GDMS is 31.12.14 and it was not the case of the complainant that the car as sold to him is second had or same had been delivered to some other person prior to selling the same to the complainant. It is submitted that the car has raised two issues. It is submitted that the complainant has not checked the same from the RTO nor produced any evidence or proof on the record. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Nitin Sharma, AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant has filed copy of repair order dated 15.01.15 & 01.02.15 from Metro Hyundai which we mark as Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed the details of the vehicle as which we mark as Annexure-C for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed the retail invoice which we mark as Annexure-I for the purposes of identification The complainant vide letter dated 01.01.15 informed the OP regarding discrepancy observed on delivery of EON Magna which we mark as Annexure-II for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed copy of RC which we mark as Annexure-III for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed the copy of insurance policy which we mark as Annexure-IV for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed the details of the meeting which we mark as Annexure-V for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed copies of emails exchanged between the parties which we mark as Annexure-VI for the purposes of identification.
It is evident from the documents submitted by the parties that the complainant purchased a car from the OP and the car was delivered to the complainant on 31.12.14. On very next day i.e. 1st January, 2015 the complainant complained to the OP that some discrepancies observed i.e. the car had already run 200 kms prior to its delivery to him and as per the OP the date of delivery was 31.12.14 whereas as per repair order from Metro Hyundai which is authorized service centre of OP the date of delivery was recorded as 30.07.14.
The OP in their written statement has admitted that the car runs some kilometer on account of testing and coming from the stockyard to the showroom. The OP has not mentioned their stockyard address. The vehicle cannot run 200 kms. on account of testing of the vehicle. It seems that vehicle has been used. The complainant has paid the full price of the new car but the vehicle was already run about 200 kms. The reason given by the OP is not justified. OP should have compensated the complainant to resolve his grievance but they failed to do so which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- in lumpsum as compensation for mental agony and harassment undergone by the complainant including cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 15.01.2019
