Haryana

StateCommission

A/964/2015

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHENDER BANSAL - Opp.Party(s)

TEJVEER SINGH

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      964 of 2015

Date of Institution:      04.11.2015

Date of Decision :      16.02.2016

 

Hyundai Motors India Limited, Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT, Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudar Taluk, Kancheepuram District Tamilnadu-602117.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Mahender Bansal C/o M/s Rambhagat Ramniwas, Resident of Main Bazaar, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District, Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Proprietor, Samrithi Motors Private Limited, 12 K.M. Mile Stone, VPO Tepla, Ambala, Jagadhri Road, Ambala.

3.      Proprietor, Dristhi Kyundai 1205, M.I.E. Tikari Boarder, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2&3

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Shri Amit Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sandeep Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondents No.2 and 3 performa.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Hyundai Motor India Limited (for short ‘Hyundai Motor’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated August  31^st, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’), in complaint No.108 of 2014. For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“..Therefore, presuming that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect, we direct the complainant to hand over his old vehicle/vehicle in question to any of the respondents along with the required documents (under a valid receipt) within a period of one month and thereafter, it is directed that the respondent No.1 manufacturing company of vehicle shall refund the cost of vehicle of the same model, brand etc to the complainant within a period of one month (after the complainant returns the vehicle to the respondent (s) within the ordered period). The complainant would also be entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- in lump sum on account of mental agony, harassment etc and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses from the respondent No.1 for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

2.      Mahender Bansal-Complainant/respondent No.1, was owner of car bearing registration No.HR-14J-8011. It was purchased by him on April 4^th, 2013, from Samrithi Motors Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2. The car was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’). The car was damaged in an accident on August 14^th, 2013. It was brought to Drishti Hyundai, Bahadurgarh-Opposite Party No.3 and was repaired.

3.      On September 17^th, 2013, the car again met with accident. It was again brought to the opposite party No.3, but could not be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that there was manufacturing defect in the car and as such he should be compensated.

5.      Indisputably, the car was purchased on April 4^th, 2013. It met with accident twice, that is, on August 14^th and September 17^th, 2013. The Repair Order (Annexure-D) and invoice dated August 27^th, 2013, (Annexure-G), show that it was major accident. It has also been stated by the complainant in his complaint that the car was badly damaged in the accident.

6.      Under these circumstances can it be said that there was manufacturing defect in the car, as alleged by the complainant? The answer is in negative. Since the car was damaged in accident twice, so it was not covered under the warranty as per Hyundai Warranty Policy (Annexure-F), the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-

                   “3.     What is not covered.

                             This warranty shall not apply to:

                             ° xxx

                             ° xxx

                             ° Damage or failure resulting from:

                             ¤ xxx

                             ¤ Misuse, abuse, accident, theft, flooding or fire.”

7.      In view of the Warranty Policy (Annexure-F) referred to above, the damage to the car due to accident was not covered under the policy. The complainant has failed to show that it was a manufacturing defect rather it appears that the defect was on account of accident. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint. So, the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 16.02.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL