BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.192 of 2021
Date of Instt. 28.05.2021
Date of Decision:29.10.2024
Amandeep aged about 33 years son of Shri Somnath, Resident of Village Dhalla, Kapurthala, Punjab 144626
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited, through its authorized person, CEO/Director Corporate 2nd& 6th Floors One ( Baani Building) Plot No.5 Commercial Centre, Jasola New Delhi-110076 Phone:011-66022000
2. Goyal Automotive Private Limited through its authorized person,
CEO/Director
Industrial area village Jugiana GT Road Ludhiana PB 141120 IN
3. Goyal Hundai c/o Goyal Automotive Private Limited Through its authorized person/manager/director Wadala Chownk, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: None for the Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased one Car model NEW I 20(IB) sub model I20 Magna + VTVT make Hyundai for an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- color Polar White. The concerned sales staff of OPs assured the complainant that this car is thoroughly inspected and the same is free from any manufacturing defect and if any manufacturing defect is found in the car during the course of its life cycle, it will be removed by OPs free of cost. A few months ago in month of July 2020, the above said car of the complainant was got damaged due to an accident and hence the complainant brought the car to the service centre of OPs No.1 & 2 at Wadala Chowk, Jalandhar City for necessary repair. However, it is pertinent to mention here that during the course of accident, the bonnet of the car was not damaged. The concerned staff of the above said service centre of OPs No.1 & 2 told the complainant that they need to file the insurance claim of the car and took signatures of the complainant on some unfilled forms and papers and told the complainant that they will complete the necessary formalities and told the complainant that they will complete the necessary formalities on their own. Thereafter, the concerned staff filed the insurance claim of the complainant and started repairing the car. After few days, the concerned staff of OPs informed the complainant that his car is repaired and hence the complainant got collected the car from OPs. Thereafter the complainant noticed that his above said car is having visible changes in the car and much of the parts of the car are changed, which otherwise were not damaged in the course of accident. The complainant observed that the bonnet of the car is very rusty and appears gruesome old and is changed without the consent and knowledge of the complainant and the complainant noticed that the OPs have got installed some old used bonnet of some another car in his car and kept the new and appealing bonnet of car with themselves for the reason best known to OPs or concerned staff of OPs. Thereafter, the complainant immediately brought back the car to the above said service centre of OPs and told his grievance to the concerned staff of OPs, but the concerned staff of OPs was adamant to attend the complainant. Not only this, when the complainant demanded the details of insurance claim and photographs of car which were clicked for purpose of insurance claim, the concerned staff of OPs refused to provide them. When the complainant realized that car of the complainant was handled in some hanky-panky affair, he demanded that he wanted to see the CCTV footage of the workshop where the car was repaired, but the concerned staff as well as manager of the said service centre refused to show the complainant the said CCTV footage. Thereafter, the complainant told the concerned staff of OPs that he is going to file a complaint with regard to unlawful act of the concerned staff of OPs, then the concerned staff accepted their mistake and told the complainant that they will change the bonnet of the car as well as other parts with fresh and unused parts. To this effect, the concerned staff on behalf of the OPs also signed on undertaking dated 20.07.2020 and put rubber seal of OPs. The act and conduct of the OPs is a gross malpractice and deficiency in service for which OPs are jointly and severely accountable and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to replace the car or refund the sale consideration to the tune of Rs.6,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against HMIL as complainant has failed to prove by any document on record that any cause of action arose to him to file the present complaint against HMIL. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant and averments made therein are vague, false, frivolous and vexatious and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is admitted that the answering OP is a manufacturer, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OPs No.2 & 3 filed their separate joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts, as the complainant is guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Commission with unclean hands with the sole intention of deceiving this Commission. It is further averred that the complainant has failed to disclose all the facts before this Commission which if disclosed would have indicated that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant against the OPs No.2 and 3. It is further averred that the complainant has no true grievance or valid cause of action qua the answering OP. It is further averred that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident and the complainant handed over the vehicle to the OP No.3 for repairing the bonnet and bumper of the vehicle of the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the OP No.1 very minutely.
7. The complainant has produced on record the RC Ex.C-1 which shows that the complainant is the owner of the car No.PB09AJ0953 Magna + VTVT make Hyundai. The policy was obtained on 24.11.2019. The complainant has alleged that he purchased the car for Rs.6,60,000/-. In the complaint and affidavit, the complainant has alleged that copy of invoice and registration certificate is Ex.C-1, but perusal of the record shows that Ex.C-1 is only the registration certificate and not the invoice. The complainant has not produced on record any invoice to show that he had purchased the car from the OPs for Rs.6,60,000/-. The complainant has further alleged that the service of the car was duly got done from the OP from time to time. He has produced on record Ex.C-2, the record showing the payment given to the OP for service as accidental repair. Free service was got done on 21.12.2019 and 05.12.2020. The complainant has alleged that in the month of July, 2020 the car met with an accident and the same was got repaired from the OPs and he had paid Rs.39,741.63/- as per Ex.C-2. This fact has been admitted by the OPs also.
8. The grievance of the complainant is that when he brought the car after repair, he found that there is a change in the car. The most parts of the car have been changed. The bonnet of the car was not damaged in the accident, but when the car was repaired, it was found that the bonnet of the car is very rusty and gruesome old. Old used bonnet of some another car has been replaced with the new and appealing bonnet of the car of the complainant. He made request to the OPs number of times for changing the bonnet with the original one, but his grievance was never resolved.
9. The OP No.1 has alleged that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.1 as the manufacturer OP No.1 is not the party to the accidental repair. The accidental repair was got done by the concerned dealer and the insurance claim was lodged with the insurance company and the OP No.1 is not concerned with that.
10. The OP No.2 has submitted that when the car was handed over to the OPs No.2 & 3, the bonnet was also damaged and due required repairs were done. The body of any vehicle with high grade metal alloys can catch rust when the same is parked in a sullage water. The complainant had taken the vehicle from the OP No.2 & 3 after being fully satisfied. It has been alleged by the OPs that the complainant was clearly told that if bonnet and bumper will be repairable, the same shall be repaired only then.
11. The complainant has proved on record the photographs of the parts, which the complainant has alleged, have been changed. The photographs have been produced as Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-11. Perusal of these photographs nowhere shows that the bonnet and bumper has been changed as the complainant has not produced on record the photographs of original bonnet and bumper. He has not produced on record the report of any surveyor or investigator or any expert to show that this bonnet and bumper is changed one and is not original. On the other hand, the OP has also produced on record the photographs Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-8, which nowhere shows the bumper and bonnet to be old one. The OP has also proved on record the bill/invoice for the repair Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3, which shows that the parts, which have been repaired, have been shown in this Invoice which also includes bumper. The onus was upon the complainant to prove that his bumper and bonnet was never damaged prior to the handing over the car to the OP, but the complainant has failed to prove this fact. No technical expert report has been filed by the complainant to prove that the old bumper has been fixed, so the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
29.10.2024 Member Member President
