Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/624

HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ KR. JAIN & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                              Date of Arguments:  06.02.2017

Date of Decision:  13.02.17

 

First Appeal No. 624/2011

                          

In the matter of:

Hyundai  Motor India Ltd

Through its authorized signatory

A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

Phase-1, Mathura Road

New Delhi-110 044.

 

Also at:

5^th & 6^th Floor, Corporate One(Baani Building)

Plot No. 5,Commercial Centre

Jasola, New Delhi—110 076.

 

                                                Versus

 

1.         Manoj Kumar Jain 

            R – 10/83, Raj Nagar

            Ghaziabad, UP-201 001.

2.       M.R.Hyundai

(A unit of Mange Ram Enterprise (P) Ltd.

Regd. Office C-73, Malviya Nagar

Delhi-110048.

 

Branch Office

Loni Road, Opp. Shalimar Garden

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.          

 

First Appeal No. 664/2011

 

In the matter of:

Hyundai  Motor India Ltd

Through its authorized signatory

A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

Phase-1, Mathura Road

New Delhi-110 044.

 

Also at:

5^th & 6^th Floor, Corporate One(Baani Building)

Plot No. 5,Commercial Centre

Jasola, New Delhi—110 076.

                                                Versus

 

1.         Manoj Kumar Jain 

            R – 10/83, Raj Nagar

            Ghaziabad, UP-201 001.

2.       M.R.Hyundai

(A unit of Mange Ram Enterprise (P) Ltd.

Regd. Office C-73, Malviya Nagar

Delhi-110048.

               

Branch Office

Loni Road, Opp. Shalimar Garden

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.          

 

CORAM

 

SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

            SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

                                                           JUDGEMENT

           By this common judgement we shall be deciding two appeals as both of them arise from the same order dated 13.09.11 passed by district forum in complaint case No. 155/11. Appeal No. 624/11 is by OP 1 i.e. the manufacturer whereas appeal No. 664/11 is by OP 2 i.e. dealer.

2.          There are two judgements in the file of district forum.  One is majority view by President and one member which has allowed the complaint.  The other is by another member which is dissenting judgement which has dismissed the complaint.

3.          The case of the respondent No. 1 in both the appeals is that the complainant purchased a Hyundai i-10 car on 16.05.2010 bearing No. UP-14 BB 3185 on payment of Rs. 4,42,000/-vide cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP from OP 2. Since the purchase of the vehicle, the same was suffering from various inherent defects.

4.     Some other defects arose during the period of time viz. Humming sounds, engine of car missing, sound in horn switch, rear wiper was loose, average of car was low, some parts in steering or suspension was loose, high beam light was going to sky, average was too low against that claimed by OP 1 in its various advertisements.  Time and again complainant brought defects to the knowledge of OP 2 .  On 05.10.2010 complainant lodged complaint at the customer care of OP 1 vide ID No.138255223.  OP 2 picked up the car and returned the same after two days stating that problem was in steering which had been rectified.  Another complaint was  lodged and auto generated mail was received in reply.  OP 2 was keenly interested in obtaining the signature on satisfaction card.  On 16.12.10 car did not take start at the red light.  On 17.02.10 officials of OP took the car to service centre.  On 18.02.10 the same  was returned with the report that ignition and locks were changed.

5.             One of the grievance of the complainant was that loyalty bonus was not paid to him despite promise by salesman of OP 2 who had left the job afterwards.  Any how during the pendency of the case loyalty bonus was paid as has been mentioned at page 4 of the impugned order.

6.             OP 2 did not appear and was proceeded exparte.  In appeal OP 2 took the plea that it was not served.

7.             During the course of arguments counsel for OP 2 stated that he did not press the plea of non service as the pleas on merit taken by him have been taken by OP 1 in his WS.

8.             OP 1 took the objection of  territorial jurisdiction on the ground that car was purchased from OP 2 in Gaziabad, complainant is resident of Gaziabad, payment was made  through cheque drawn on Bank in Gaziabad, cause of action arose in Gaziabad, registration number of car is of Gaziabad  The same has been brushed aside by the majority view.  After quoting the decision of National Commission in Abhishek Singh vs, Unitech in it what was held was that clause  limiting jurisdiction of courts in the agreement cannot over ride the statutory right of the complainant. That was a decision relating to confinement of jurisdiction to one of the two courts.  That was not at all applicable in the present case.

9.             The next plea taken by the appellant is that one of the complaint is that engine of car was missing.  If that is so, it is not clear as to how the complainant had been using the car for about a year. Equally surprising is that car covered extensive mileage of about 11105 km.  That is not feasible without engine.

10.           Majority view recites at page 9 of the impugned order that complainant was practicing chartered accountant with standing of 18 years.   It appears that that is the reason why the majority view took a sympathetic approach towards the complainant.  The majority view directed both the Ops to refund the entire cost of the vehicle plus compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for humiliation and harassment, Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation.  It was further directed that if the order is not complied with within 30 days, complainant shall be entitled to interest on the amount paid by him for purchase of the car @ 9% till the date of realization.

 

 

11.           The minority view noticed that if vehicle had any manufacturing defect it could not have been used for one year and covered about 11105 km as per

decision of National Commission in R.Bhaskar vs. P.N.Orami IV (2006)CPJ 257.  Hence the complaint was directed to be dismissed.

12.           We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments advanced by counsel for appellant in both the cases. We find ourselves in agreement with the pleas raised by appellant. The dissenting view appears to be in consonance with law laid down by the National Commission.  We find that when the car was purchased in Ghaziabad, Delhi forum had no jurisdiction.  The cost of action arose in Ghaziabad.

13.           For the foregoing reasons the appeals are accepted, majority view is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

              One copy of the order be placed at file of appeal No. 664/11.

            One copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

             One copy of the order be sent to district forum for information.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                       MEMBER(JUDICIAL)