Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/401/2013

Smt. Rajni Narula - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Suri,Adv

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	401 of 2013
Date  of  Institution	:	24.09.2013
Date   of   Decision	:	22.03.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Smt.Rajni Narula w/o Late Sh.Rajnish Narula, House No.5826, Sector 38W, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited, A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

 

2]  M/s. Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.7, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Amit Gupta, Adv. for OP-1.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP-2.

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased a new Hyundai Fluidic Verna 1.6 SX Car for Rs.9,60,976/- from Opposite Party No.1 on 10.8.2011 and got it registered vide Regd. No.CH-01-AJ-0549 (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that the said car was originally purchased by the husband of the complainant, but after his sad demise, the ownership has been transferred in the name of the complainant.  It is averred that the said car is suffering from many inherent problems from the very beginning, some of which are Rattling Noise from the near the Steering, the Steering felt very heavy and was difficult to maneuver and much discomfort while driving.  That the dealer-OP No.2 was confronted about the condition of the car and the complaints were expressed at the time of first service itself.  That the mechanics of Opposite Party told that there is a manufacturing defect in the Steering of the car and various parts related thereto will have to be replaced, but the same were not available in the stock and asked the complainant to keep driving the car and the necessary replacement will be made as soon as possible.  However, the problem kept on increasing day by day. It is averred that the complainant repeatedly visited Opposite Party No.2 for the promised repairs or replacement of the vehicle, but the OPs always put the complainant off with lame excuses.  However, on much persuasion the Opposite Party No.2 merely applied some grease to the steering assembly on 22.5.2012 & 25.8.2012 and changed the steering gear assembly under warranty on 8.9.2012 (Ann.C-5 to C-8).  That the replacement of the steering gear assembly also did not solve the inherent problem in the car, so the complainant again took the car to Opposite Party No.2 on 18.9.2012 (Ann.C-9 & C-10).  Thereafter, the complainant was again asked to bring the car on 22.9.2012, but the complainant again given back the car without solving the problem or replacing any part (Ann.C-11).  The car was again inspected on 24.9.2012 but the problem was not solved.  The complainant once again took the car to Opposite Party NO.2 on 5.10.2012 and the OPs replaced two more parts namely Safety Lock Bolt and Upper Column Assembly (Ann.C-12 & C-13), but inspite of this, the inherent problems in the steering/driving the car could not be resolved.  Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs, to which Opposite Party NO.1 did not replied, however, Opposite Party No.2 while giving reply took stand that the satisfaction note has been signed, whereas the signing of the satisfaction note is a pre-condition to take a Gate Pass for taking the delivery of the car. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and took objection that the complaint is time barred.  The sale, service and repair of the car in question is admitted.  It is denied that the vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect.  It is submitted that the said vehicle was reported thrice on 8.4.2012, 30.7.2012 and 10.12.2012 for accidental repairs at the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 and that it is evident that the complainant is negligent in driving. Further stated that accidents adversely affects the performance of the vehicle.  It is stated that on the basis of available information, the said vehicle was purchased on 10.8.2011 and that the alleged problem was reported for the first time on 24.7.2012 at the mileage of 29561 kms.  It is submitted that the vehicle was purchased approximately one year before and vehicle has covered an extensive mileage by that time.  Accordingly, the vehicle was delivered after proper inspection & repair work.  It is also submitted that the vehicle was lastly reported with concern of steering on 5.10.2012 at the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 at the mileage of 35605 kms. Accordingly, proper inspection of vehicle in question was carried out and Column Assy.-UPR replaced under warranty and after redressing the concern, the vehicle was delivered to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant. That the complainant had also endorsed a satisfaction note after the repairs. It is pleaded that the complainant has enjoyed the warranty benefit for two years and filed this case for undue benefit at the cost of answering Opposite Party.  It is also pleaded that answering Opposite Party deals with all its dealer on Principal to Principal basis and that any error or omission on part of dealer at the time of sale or service cannot be fastened upon the answering Opposite Party.  It is further pleaded that the vehicle has covered an extensive mileage of 61474 as on 2.12.2013, which could not have been possible if there was defect in the vehicle.  It is also pleaded that after 5.10.2012, the vehicle has not been reported with concern of steering which suggest that the vehicle is running perfectly.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint. 

 

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply and admitted the sale, service and repair of the car being matter of record. It is submitted that the said car came for 1^st Free Service on 21.8.2011 at about 1408 kms and 2^nd Free Service on 12.12.2011 at 9774 Kms. The services were done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and no steering problem was reported.  It is asserted that the warranty does not cover accidental repairs. That on the 3^rd Free Service on 17.3.2012 at 19840 kms, the noise from the front side of the car was report, which was checked and set in order.  Thereafter, the car was brought back for Accidental Repairs on 8.4.2012 at about 21608 kms which was paid for by the complainant.  Thereafter, the car came back on 24.4.2012 for checking of the central locking, on 22.5.2012 at 24290 kms with noise problem from the front side of the car, which was investigated and the car was delivered back to the complainant. That the car came on 30.7.2012 for an accidental repair job at 29934 kms, which was successfully accomplished and the claim paid off by the insurers of the complainant namely New India Insurance Company Limited. It is stated when the problem with regard to steering assembly was report, it was replaced free of cost under warranty on 5.10.2012.  It is denied that the defect in the steering column existed post replacement on 5.10.2012.  It is also denied that the vehicle is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, as alleged.  It is further denied that the car is defective so as to warrant replacement, rather the only defective component stands replaced under the warranty and the car has also run over 35605 kms till 5.10.2012, hence the car cannot in any manner be termed defective in nature.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the score that the complainant in the year 2012 had raised her grouse with regard to the performance of the vehicle, when abnormal noise and difficulty in maneuvering the vehicle with the steering was reported to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party NO.2 vide its Repair Order, dated 8.9.2012 (Ann.C-7), replaced the Gear Box Assembly – Steering vide Invoice Ann.C-8 of even date.  The said replacement was made without charging anything from the complainant.  Thereafter, immediately within 10 days’ time, the said vehicle was taken to Opposite Party NO.2 on 18.9.2012, with a problem of noisy steering and the same was inspected and dealt with under general checkup and running repairs.  The complainant on receiving the said vehicle from the Opposite Parties on 22.9.2012, appended a note claiming that the problem has not been fixed.  The said note also mentions the name of service Incharge Mr.Toor, who as per the complainant was in the knowledge of said repeated problem encountered by the complainant. Thereafter, the said vehicle was again inspected on 5.10.2012 vide Ann.C-12 and C-13, declaring that steering column assembly – UPR and steering column shaft assembly were replaced  without charging anything from the complainant. 

 

6]       However, the complainant not finding any improvement in the said vehicle served a legal notice dated 16.10.2012 through her counsel, which was replied back by Opposite Party No.2, through its letter dated 22.10.2012, declaring that the repairs and replacements carried out at the establishment were upto the mark and that a test drive was conducted under the supervision of  APSM of Opposite Party NO.1 and a Senior Technician of Opposite Party NO.2 along with the driver of the complainant who found the working of the vehicle satisfactorily. Therefore, the Opposite Party NO.2 categorically denied any wrong doing or deficiency in service on its part.     

 

7]       The Opposite Parties, while contesting the claim of the complainant, have filed written version/reply claiming that the problem, as pointed out by the complainant, with regard to the noisy steering, and her difficulty in driving the vehicle, which was causing much discomfort due to excessive physical force in requiring to drive the vehicle.  The Opposite Party No.1 has placed on record the copy of Service History, along with reply, claiming that the vehicle in question, since the date of its sale, had met with accidents on three different occasions and also that the difficulty encountered by the complainant with the steering assembly column was also addressed and the was replaced being under warranty terms & conditions, without charging anything from the complainant, when on the second occasion, the vehicle was inspected by its Senior Official and the same was found in perfect condition in the presence of the driver of the vehicle, who on being satisfied with the performance of the vehicle, singed a Satisfactory Note dated 05.10.2012, thus, concluding the entire dispute with regard to the faulty steering assembly column.    

 

8]       The Opposite Party No.1 has raised objection with regard to the claim of the complainant that Opposite Party NO.1 was duty bound to replace the faulty spare or the vehicle in question, as it is claimed that the problem with regard to the steering was inherent and existed since the date of its sale.  The Opposite Party No.1 has claimed that the replacement of the steering column assembly was totally in line with the terms & conditions of the warranty, as the vehicle was within the warranty period of 24 months from the date of its delivery nor it had travelled more than 40,000 kms., therefore, the said steering assembly column was replaced under warranty without charging anything from the complainant, pointing out the annexures placed on record by the complainant herself (Ann.C-7 & C-8).  Thus claiming no deficiency in service on its part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

9]       The Opposite Party NO.2 while contesting the claim of the complainant has filed its reply claiming that no act of deficiency in service has been specifically alleged by the complainant except for the difficulty faced by her with regard to the steering of the vehicle, which was duly addressed in terms of the warranty terms & conditions of Opposite Party No.1 by replacing the same with new one without charging anything from the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 has also demonstrated that on each such occasions when the vehicle in question was brought to its workshop for either running repair, accidental repairs or working of the vehicle, the same was diligently attended to and even such information was shared with Opposite Party NO.1 as is evident from the service history of the vehicle placed on record by Opposite Party No.1. Thus claiming no deficiency in service on its part, has prayed of dismissal of the complaint.

 

10]      During the course of proceedings, the complainant claiming some extra facts, as per her affidavit dated 20.10.2014 has claimed that the vehicle in question was taken to the premises of Opposite Party No.2 on 27.8.2014 and on inspection of the said vehicle by Mr.Toor, Sr. Service Manager, few faults were noticed namely :-

1. Shockers (front Two)
2. Both side insulators (front)
3. Suspension
4. Clutch/Pressure Plate
5. Steering assembly and other steering parts.
6. Intercooler Turbo pipe
7. Tyres (uneven wear and tear)  

 

and that a Service Report was prepared by Opposite Party NO.2 to be shared with Opposite Party NO.1 seeking its opinion & instructions for any further action. Unfortunately, on repeated visits of the complainant nothing conclusive was done by Opposite Party NO.2.  The complainant thereafter visited a local repair shop namely Verma Motors on 20.9.2014 for getting these issues addressed.  A bill to the effect amounting to Rs.16,666/- has been placed on recorded along with affidavit. 

11]      The complainant thereafter moved an application for getting the vehicle inspected from an expert so as to locate that problem suffered by the vehicle. This Forum while allowing the said application, vide order dated 15.12.2014, directed the Office of General Manager, Punjab Roadways Chandigarh, to inspect the vehicle and submit the report.  In pursuance of the orders of this Forum dated 15.12.2014, a report dated 23.01.2015, signed by a Team of Works Manager, Service Station Incharge and Health Mechanic, was received declaring that even after replacement of Gear Assembly Steering, Boot Safety Lock, Column Assembly etc., the vehicle, during testing continuously pull to the left side, which was considered to be a major defect in the steering system.  The report without pin-pointing the faulty in the vehicle causing it to pull towards the left side declare the same to be an inherent manufacturing defect.

 

12]      In the light of inconclusive Expert Report as well as the affidavit of the complainant dated 20.10.2014, wherein she had pointed out other defects, apart from the steering assembly, the complainant had got the clutch bearing and pressure plate replaced from a local workshop, which according to us is a normal wear & tear of moving parts, which do not contribute to the vehicle pulling to either side.  Therefore, such repair, replacement or change of lubricants, do not constitute any deficiency in service on the part of either of the Opposite Parties. 

13]      The other factors, which the complainant had referred in her affidavit dated 20.10.2014, namely replacement of Turbo pipe, rear tyres,  both side insulators, too are in no manner related to warranty terms & conditions of the vehicle. 

 

14]      In our considered opinion the factors, which may contribute to the vehicle’s maneuvering with its steering problem, would have a contributory effect, if the front shockers, both side insulators (rubber parts holding the suspension), suspension assembly and the steering column, alone are responsible.  As the Opposite Party NO.2 has not disclosed through its invoice dated 8.7.2015, if it had dealt with these issues in detail, we feel that the act of Opposite Party No.2 in bringing on record the true facts about the functioning of the vehicle amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 

 

15]      The complainant’s prayer with regard to the replacement of the vehicle with new one, cannot be acceded to, as the warranty terms & conditions placed on record by herself, do no give her any such right.  Therefore, the same is declined. However, the inability of Opposite Party NO.2 in pin-pointing the fault with the vehicle solving the problem of pulling it to the left side, is considered to be a deficiency in service on its part, for which the complainant deserves an adequate compensation.          

 

16]     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua Opposite Party No.2 (M/s.Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd.) and dismissed qua Opposite Party NO.1 (M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd.). The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service, apart from paying litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 45 days of its receipt; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

22^nd March, 2016                                                                  

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER