DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM,SAMBALPUR.
C.C.Case No 23 of 2017
Subash Kumar Agrawala,
Aged about 54 years
S/o Harihar Prasad Agrawal,
AT=Sansadak, P.O.Golebazar,
P.S.Town,Dist: Sambalpur ………………..……. Complainant.
Versus
M/S Aakash Deep Huiundai Service,
N.H.6, Gopalpali,Chowk,
Sambalpur-768006 ……………………………Opp.Party.
For Complainant : Arabinda Dash Adv. & Associates
For O.P. :S.K.Mishra Adv.
PRESENT: SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT,
SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER,
SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER,
Date of Order: 23/08/2018
SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
The complainant files this complaint against the O.P.
- The complainant being a P.W.D. contractor for own use purchased one car, model“EON” from O.P on dated 02.05.2016 on a consideration amount of Rs.4,35,422/-(four lakhs thirty five thousand four hundred twenty two).
- After a few day of purchasing the said car, the complainant found unusual sound in the engine of the car and this problem was brought to the notice of the company during the first free service of the car and the complainant was assured by the employee of the service Centre to get rectified but the sound was as it is. So having no way out, the complainant brought the notice of the service engineer who convinced the complainant that defect would be automatically cleared in course of running of the car and it happens as the parts of the car are new.
- Again complained of the same problem even during 2nd free service e.g. on dated 23.07.2016 which was mentioned in the repair order but still the defect was not removed by the staff concerned in the service center rather they told the complainant that engineer is on leave and the problem would be sorted out at 3rd free service.
- Same problem meantime at 3rd free service. The complainant was asked to leave the car at service center and to come after two days. When after two days, complainant went to the service center where he was informed by the staff that gear box of the engine was opened and one part is required to be changed and in the process, it will take 4 to 5 days and the complainant was asked to come after 5 days. You have to pay the charges of gear oil and packing, pasts, etc. even though the car was new and problem is from the date of purchasing which it is their duty to replace within the warranty period. But in contravene of the policy, they charged from my client extra RS.5002/- and delivered the vehicle after 21 days that too after complaining several time before the authorized dealer Aakash Deep Hyundai Baraipali and the complaint was also lodged to Hyundai Motors India Limited in his toll free number.
- In those 21 days, the complainant suffers a lot both mentally and economically. The action on the part of O.P. does come within the definition of Section-2 (f) of the C.P.Act.1986.
Documents in support of Complainaint.
1. The Xerox copy of original cash memo of car.
2. The Xerox copy of Document showing warranty period.
3. The Xerox copy of repaired bill charged by the dealer.
4. The Xerox copy of insurance policy.
5. The Xerox copy of Registration
6. The Xerox copy of Con tractor license
7. Others supporting documents.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant prays before the Hon’ble Forum for the following relief:-
- To pass order directing to compensate the consumer Rs. 15,000/-for as repaired payment s as well as taxi fair amount.
- To direct the O.P to pay the cost of litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- to consumer / complainant.
- To direct to pay Rs.40,000/- to the consumer/complainant for harassment, mental agony and financial suffering suffered by him and his family and any other relief / relief’s as deemed just and proper by the Hon’ble District Consumer Forum.
- His free service was valid for 24 months but due to defect it has been lapses within eleven months. So please direct as to avail the free service for further 13 months.
The Opposite Party submits to files the Written version as follows:-
1) If admitted that one Hyundai Eon car was sold to the complainant by this O.P. on 02.05.2016 on a consideration amount of RS.4, 35,422/-
2) The 2nd servicing was done on 23.07.2016.On that occasion the general check – up as per the norms of manual of servicing was done and as per the complaint of the complainant noise from the gear was to be checked, but the mechanics of the workshop seeks guidance of the service engineer of the company, so he was advised to bring the car after a week.
3) The complainant brought the car to the workshop of the O.P. after seven months i.e. On 02.02.2017.The car was checked thoroughly, to rectify the sound from all the doors with all others parts which may be responsible for the sound were checked, after that the gear box was opened and the sound was rectified. Further it is submitted here that the complainant was never asked to pay for the cost of spare parts which are covered under warranty. However he has paid of lubricants, consumable, and non-warranted parts during the servicing..
4) That no prima facie case is made out against the O.Ps and as such the case has to be dismissed on that ground. The complainant has filed this case only to grab money from the O.P.s by fabricating false allegation which is devoid by any merits.
5) In view if the aforesaid facts no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the O.Ps land the allegation of deficiency is service on its part is not made out and hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claim and the O.Ps should not be saddled with compensation and cost in any manner.
6) The complaint prayed for being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed/ rejected. Dismissed with exemplary cost against the complainant for making false and vexatious allegation against the O.P.
This is a simple case. The complainant alleges that he was not given proper service, and was charged Rs.5002/- which he should not have (during free service).
The O.P. denies the charge on the basis that only consumable have been charged (which are beyond the warranty). Thorough check up of the noise took 21 days for rectification (this including checking up of nearly all nitrating parts).
On the above back ground the case is taken up:-
Heard both parties. Perused documents. The complainant has filed Xerox copies which are not legible. To a specific question by the forum that the O.P. has charged legitimately on replaced engine Oil, he had no answer.
His only complaint was that he was delivered the vehicle after 21 days. As he is a contractor, he spent Rs.10,000/- on hiring of taxi. He has not filed any hiring charges (receipt).So his case is not believable on the point. As the copies filed by complainant is not legible the O.P. was asked to file the Original, which he did.
The learned advocate for O.P should us that in the first service dt.1.6.2016, the complainant was encouraged to write his opinion. The complainant opined that “first free service is not satisfactory”
The second free service on dt. 23.7.2016 has no comment like in the first service. The complainant was asked to come after7 days of 2nd servicing, but he came for service on 02.02.2017.So the Learned Advocate submits that the noise was not a gearbox. The machine had other source of noise.
The Job card shows many work& the Learned Advocate justified the delay of 21 days for all the works done. On the other hand side it shows Rs.1700/- charged for interior and body polish which is beyond the scope of free service. Besides bill dated22.2.17 shows a figure of 3302.00 for parts replaced or work done which are not included in free service.
On repair order dt. 03.03.2017 the complainant after getting satisfaction has signed. Hence according to O.P.’s Advocate the complainant has no case.
We have gone through the records submitted thoroughly. Found that Bill dated 22.2.2017 does not have a flow. There are no labor charges. The 2nd sale amount is genuine. This payment to Rs.3302.00 and the polish charge is RS.1700/-l which comes to RS.5300/- which the complainant has paid.
WE found no justification in the claim filed by the complainant. The 21 days of delay has been thoroughly explained by the O.P.
Hence we conclude that there is no case for the complainant.
Hence the case is dismissed. In the circumstances no order to cast
-Sd/-
-Sd/- SHRI A.P.MUND
SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree. PRESIDENT.
-Sd/- -Sd/-
SHRI K.D.DASH. Member I agree. Dictated and corrected by me
PRESIDENT
