Haryana

Ambala

CC/90/2016

Puneet Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director and CEO,Hyundai Motor India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

L.R. Saini.

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

          Complaint Case No. : 90 of 2016

                      Date of Institution    : 11.02.2016

                      Date of Decision       : 15.03.2018

 

Puneet Bhatia s/o Sh.Harish Bhatia r/o # 1-B, Bank Colony, Opp. Old Session Court, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Managing Director and CEO, Hyundai Motor India Limited Regd. Office at Kanchipuram, Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperunbudur Taluk, District Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu-602117.
2. M/s Samta Motors, new Vita Milk Plant N.H.1, Ambala city, 134007.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA,PRESIDENT.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA,MEMBER.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. L.R.Saini, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Saravjit Singh, Adv. for OP No. 1.

                        Sh.Dev Batra, Adv. for OP No.2.              

 

ORDER

 

                        Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle of make HYUNDAI CRETA SX 1.6 CRDI from OP No.1 vide invoice No.T201500133 dt.01.04.2003 and the vehicle was delivered on 27.07.2015. The beading behind the pillar became loose even before the first pre-service was done but the Op No.1 rectified the same with temporary fix. The complainant planned a trip to Mussorie with his family to celebrate his wedding anniversary on 13.10.2015. On 10.10.2016 when the vehicle was passing through a village few kilometers before Dehradun it stopped and its accelerator refused to respond and the engine went off all of a sudden. He tried for turning on the ignition but the self refused to trigger the engine. The complainant called the Hyundai Roadside Assistance at 2.41 PM but its technician reached at spot after two hours who asked that the vehicle would have to tow but recovery van would take more time. Hyundai arranged a cab which reached at the spot after four hours to drop the complainant at Mussorie. The complainant handedover the vehicle to technician who assured that the same would be delivered in working condition at his hotel in Mussorie. Next day the complainant was intimated that fault has been diagnosed but they are trying to arrange the replacement.  The complainant had to pay Rs.10,000/- being exorbitant taxi fares being in a tourist location as his vehicle Creta was no longer at the disposal. On 12.10.2015 BM Hyundai Dehradun Service team telephonically informed that the vehicle is in working condition after replacing the Fuel Pressure Sensor which got damaged for no apparent reason. However, he refused to deliver the vehicle at Mussorie as per commitment, therefore, the complainant had to book a taxi from Mussorie to Dehradun on 13.10.2015 by spending a sum of Rs.1500/-. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant without explaining the root cause of the problem. On 13.10.2015 the complainant drove off with his wife and son but after driving only 26 Kms from BM Hyundai Dehradun the vehicle again stopped exactly the same way at around 2 PM. Being unable to start his vehicle he again called BM Hyundai Service head to report the fault but Mr.Mohit had arranged for the service technician to reach the stalled vehicle who arrived at the spot after more than an hour. After a lot of persuasion over multiple calls Hyundai RSA arranged to drop complainant and his family to his home. The complainant could not celebrate his wedding anniversary due to his late arrival at home and it all happened due to stopping of vehicle again and it also caused mental agony and harassment. The complainant managed his locally hired conveyance for next 9 days and the car was delivered back to him on 23.10.2015. Second time the fuel pressure sensor and ECM of the vehicle were replaced as communicated to him verbally without sharing the root cause of the breakdown of the vehicle with the complainant by the BM Hyundai despite mails and requests.  It was promised to the complainant that the quality of the vehicle would remain unobstructed but it seems that he has been disillusioned and cheated  as the vehicle broke down midway not only once but twice within a short span of its purchase.  The vehicle was defective and not worthy for road use and there is short coming in its quality. There is clear cut deficiency in service vis a vis repair and production level resulting into inadequacy in quality and manner of performance thereof. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C15.

2.                                 On notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is devoid of any merit as every vehicle is assembled with hundreds of major/minor parts and being machinery it may have problems any time due to different driving conditions. The concerned issues raised by the complainant have already been resolved under warranty. As per record, second free service was done at the mileage of 10038 KMs on 23.03.2016 at workshop Charisma Gold Wheel.  NO complaint as to the performance of the car since the rectification has been reported by the complainant and the vehicle is in perfect running condition.  The OP No.1 operates with all the dealers on a principal to principal basis and errors/ omission/ representations, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer and being a manufacturer it has no role in the retail sale or service of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service in production or repair on the part of OP No.1. Other  pleas raised in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                                 OP No.2 in its separate reply has submitted that the vehicle was delivered after due satisfaction  of the complainant and at that time same was defect free. The Op No.2 has no concern with the trip of complainant to Dehradun and Mussorie and the vehicle at that movement was neither brought to the Op No.1 nor it has any knowledge about the alleged defect. The matter is between the complainant and BM Hyundai of Dehradun and he was to reply bitterly but he has not been made party to the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RX1/A, Annexure RX2/A and documents, Annexure R1, Annexure R1/1 and Annexure R2.

4.                                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                                 Undisputedly, the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question on 27.07.2015 from OP No.1 vide Annexure C1. The version of the complainant is that he had planned a trip to celebrate his wedding anniversary but on 10.10.2015 when he was on the way to Mussorie, vehicle broke down in the midway near Dehradun due to this he and his family had to suffer a lot at a deserted place. Moreover, the technician of Hyundai reached at the spot late to whom the complainant handedover the vehicle for doing the needful. He had left with no option but to hire a taxi from Dehradun to Mussorie  and further spent Rs.10,000/- for this trip. Since the above said defect arose near Dehradun which got repaired from BM Hyundai as shown in Annexure C6 and Annexure C7.  It is strange that the vehicle again broke down on the very date i.e. 13.10.2015 when it was delivered to the complainant after claiming it in working condition. The complainant had purchased the car in question by spending huge amount but it is strange that fuel pressure sensor and ECM were changed on 19.10.2015 (Annexure C6) within six months of its purchase during warranty period. Though the OPs have tried to cover up this by raising a plea that the vehicle is still running perfectly and no issue has ever been lodged by the complainant after resolving the issues in question but it cannot set them free from any liability. Moreover, this stand taken by the Op No.1 is contrary to the version taken by it in his reply wherein it has been claimed that the car was having impeccable features with high safety standards for trouble free and safe driving. Undisputedly, the fuel pressure sensor and ECM of the vehicle were replaced but it must be borne in mind that this must have caused harassment, mental agony, anger, anguish,  frustration and sadness on the part of the person,  who  had  bought  a very new car.  It is pertinent to mention here that Fuel Pressure Sensor and ECM are important part and without the working of these parts the vehicle cannot run and that parts were replaced within a period of four months doubted the remarkable features in the vehicle which the Op No.1 has claimed in its reply, therefore, the service centre/ manufacturer are duty bound to provide after sale service but in the present case it appears that the Ops have violated the provisions of Consumer Protection Act by not providing service after selling the vehicle as it went out of order number of times firstly within warranty period. It was the duty of the service centre to get the vehicle trouble free after repairs but in the present case it appears that the vehicle continued to give problems which show that the vehicle was of sub-standard quality and has failed to fulfill the purpose for which the complainant had purchased the same. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as III (2014) CPJ 130 (NC)  Harpreet Motors Private Limited, National Insurance Co. Limited V. Dr.Prithipal Singh Bhandari & Ors.  DOD 26.05.2014 - wherein it has been held by Hon’ble national Commission that  Once the vehicle had been sent to petitioner for repairs, it was their duty to carry out all necessary repairs in one go and give vehicle back in perfect running condition-Vehicle continued to give problems even after delivery of vehicle had been given to  complainant after charging sum of Rs.2,78,500/-.   It is pertinent to mention here that the service centre and manufacturer are not suppose to earn profit from the customers and they cannot be permitted to defeat the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act because after sale of the product it remains their duty to redress the grievance of the customer but in the present case the appearing Ops have failed to do so. On this point reliance can be given from case law titled as Nishad Nagesh Kulkarni Versus Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & ors. I (2016)  CPJ 584 (NC). Though the Op No.1 in its reply has mentioned that after resolving the issues raised by the complainant the vehicle is running perfectly and the complainant has not pointed out any defect/problem after 2^nd free service when the vehicle had covered the mileage 10038 KMs but it does not mean that the complainant has no suffered any mental agony and harassment due to non performance of the vehicle as per the expectations of the complainant.

8.                                 Keeping in view the above discussion we are of the view that the complainant has suffered a lot on account of non-performance of the vehicle as per his expectations and he had to hire taxi in order to meet out his necessities, therefore, assume that the complainant might have spent Rs.5,000/- as fare of taxi.  Therefore, accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and the Op No.1, being a manufacturer of the vehicle, is directed as under:

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, sufferings and cost of litigation
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fare of taxi

 

Compliance of this order be bade within a period of one month failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 15.03.2018                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

                                                                             (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                        MEMBER

           

 

                                                                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                MEMBER