Haryana

Ambala

CC/355/2018

Padam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jai Bhagwan Rana

15 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                Complaint case No.:  355 of 2018.

                                                Date of Institution         :   25.10.2018.

                                                Date of decision   :    15.04.2021

 

Padam Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, R/o Vill. Nachraun, sub Tehsil Radapur, Tehsil Jagadhri Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Marketing and Sales Head Quarter, 5^th and 6^th Floor, Corporate  ne (Banni Building) Plot No. 5, Commercial Center, Jasola, New Delhi-110076, through its Managing Director/General Manager.
2. Samta Motors (Authorized Dealer- The Hyundai Motor India Ltd.) Near Vita Milk Plant Lane, NH-1, Opposite Baldev Nagar Police Station, Ambala City, Haryana through its authorized person.
3. Khanna Automobile, Near Agarsen College, Chhachhrauli Road, Jagadhri Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Authorized dealer of Hyundai Motor Ltd. through its authorized person.

 

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri J.S. Rana, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Amrit Lal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Shri Dev Batra, Advocate for OP No. 2.

OP No. 3 proceeded against ex-parte.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the defective car with new one or to refund total sale price of the said defective car, alongwith other expenses i.e. fee for registration etc.
2. To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and cost of litigation

 

                             OR

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may                     deem fit.

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that on 04.05.2012, the complainant purchased the car make Hyundai (Verna) bearing chasis No. MALCJ41LCM062990 Engine No.  D4FBCU104494 and having registration No. HR-24C- 0037, from the OP No. 2, for a sum of Rs. 10,74,000/-, manufactured by OP No. 1. OPs No. 2 & 3, are the authorized dealer of OP No. 1. Since the date of purchase of the said car, complainant got its serviced regularly from the OP No. 2 as per the schedule. At the time of second service it was noticed by the complainant that there were cracks/bubbles in all the four tyres of the car, unwanted noise in the steering system, the pick-up of the car was very low ,there was starting problem, and engine gave miss while driving at low speed. On 17.08.2012, complainant took his car to the workshop of OP No. 2 for the second service and its engineer noticed all the above mentioned problems. After service the said engineer handed over the car to the complainant with the assurance that all the defects have been removed and regarding tyres, he suggested to approach the authorized dealer of M/s Bridgestone Tyres Co. As per the advice of OP No. 2, complainant took his car to authorized dealer of M/s Bridgestone Tyres Co., at Ambala and told about the problems in the tyres. After inspecting all the four tyres, the expert of M/s Bridgestone Tyres Co., told the complainant to come again after 10 days, as the matter has to be brought to the knowledge of the manufacturer of tyre and this process will take time. On 17.08.2012, while getting the second service of the car, complainant brought all the above mentioned problems into the knowledge of engineer of OP No. 2, who assured him that all the problems will be removed but the said problems still persist. On 05.11.2012, the complainant took his car to the workplace of M/s B.M. Hyundai, Dehradun (Uttrakhand) for the 3^rd service. The engineer of the OPs handed-over the car to the complainant with false assurance that the problems have been removed but all the problems still persist. On filing of complaint, the engineers of OP No. 1, visited the house of complainant and inspected the car and they also failed to rectify the defects of the car. He again approached the OP No. 2, on 10.12.2012, for rectification of the defects, its engineer kept the car for 5-6 hours and handed over the same to the complainant with the assurance that car is okay and is running smoothly. After taking delivery and plying the car on road complainant noticed that all the problems are still persists. He again approached the OP No. 2, but this time it did nothing. As the complainant is doing his business at Dehradun (Uttrakhand) therefore, he took his car for repairs to the authorized dealer of Hyundai at Dehradun (Uttrakhand), its engineer checked the car but could not be able to remove the defects of car. In the meantime he also remained in touch with the dealer of the tyres and requested to replace all the four defective tyres with the new one but of no avail. By not repairing the defective car and not replacing the defective tyres the OPs have committed deficiency in service, hence the present complaint.

2.                          The OP No. 1 i.e. M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd., appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding locus-standi; bad for non-joinder of the parties, jurisdiction and concealment and suppression of material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that the liability of the OP No. 1, being manufacturer is limited and extends to the warranty obligations only. As per information provided by the OP No. 2, the second free service was carried out on 11.08.2012, when the car had run for 10171 Kms. It is further stated that battery and tyres mounted on vehicle are directly warranted by the manufacturer and this fact has been mentioned in the Owner Manual/Service Booklet supplied, at the time of delivery of the car. The tyres manufactured by M/s Bridge  Stone Tyres have been fitted in the car of the complainant, as such OP No. 1 has no liability. The grievance of the complainant regarding defects in the tyres has to be resolved by M/s Bridge Stone Tyres Co. but he has not impleaded it as opposite party in the arrays of the opposite parties, in the present complaint. Complainant had not reported any defects in the car during the second service and has filed the present complaint by leveling false and frivolous allegations against it with the ulterior motive to grab the money illegally. It is further stated that the car is running in prefect condition and has already covered the extensive mileage of 1,32,258/- Kms as on 18.10.2017. The same could not have been possible, if there was any manufacturing defect in the said car. As per available information, on 03.11.2012, the complainant took the said car for third service to the OP No. 2, when it had covered the mileage of 17068 Kms, with the problems of engine misfiring. No other problems as being alleged in the complaint reported. The said vehicle was duly inspected and it was observed that its performance is upto the mark and there is no defect in it. Service kit-oil filter, engine oil, filter-air cleaner, filter cartridge, pin were changed and the vehicle was delivered in perfect condition. Sometimes, due to use of impure fuel engine do misfires. On 10.12.2012, when the car had run for 21220 Kms, the complainant had complaint about excess tyre wearing and tyre bulging and no other problems/defect was reported by him. Tyres are manufactured by M/s Bridgestone Tyres Co. and if there is any defect, then the said company is liable to do the needful and to redress the grievance of complainant, as the warranty of the tyres was given by the manufacturer of the tyres. Whenever it had received any complaint from the complainant the same was duly forwarded to OP No. 2. The OP No. 1 has not committed any deficiency in the service, thus the complaint filed against it may be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.                          The OP No. 2 appeared through counsel and has filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding estoppal, maintainability and for mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits it is stated that the Op No. 2 is only the dealer of the M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and use to sell the vehicles as received from the manufacturer. It had delivered the car to the complainant in a good condition, as received from the manufacturer. The allegations levelled by the complainant are different then the facts mentioned in the repair orders of the free services. Complainant never reported about defects in the tyres. Complainant is well-aware that if there is any defect in the tyres, the same has to be replaced by the M/s Bridgestone Tyres Co only. The OP No. 2 has not committed any deficiency in service, thus the present complaint filed against it may be dismissed with heavy cost.

4.                Upon notice, opposite party No. 3 failed to appear before this Commission and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2018.

5.                          The complainant tendered his affidavit an Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand the learned counsel for OP No. 1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Varun Panta, working as Assistant Manager (Legal & Secretariat) with M/s Hyundai Motor Ltd. (OP No. 1) having its office.

6.                          We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant. 

 

 

7.                          From the certificate Annexure C-1, it is evident that, the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP No. 2 on 04.05.2012. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that, at the time of second service complainant noticed following problems in the car:-

1.  Cracks/bubbles appeared in all the four tyres.
2. There was unwanted noise in the steering system.
3. Pick of the car was very low.
4. There was a starting problem.
5. There was a missing problem in the engine at the law speed.

                   The said problems could not be rectified by the OPs, even after repeated repairs, thus it is clear that there was manufactured defect in car in question.

8.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No. 1 has submitted that, as on 12.09.2016 the car had run for 110053 Kms, the same could not have been possible if there is any manufacturing defect in the car in question. The defects pointed by the complainant are such which can be rectified either by repairing or replacing the defective parts of the car. In order to prove this fact that, the car is having manufactured defect and the tyres are defective, the complainant has not placed on record any expert report.

9.                Learned counsel for OP No. 2 has submitted that during the first three free services, complainant had never complaint about any problem in the car in question. On 10.12.2012, the complainant for the first time complained about the problems in the tyres, when the car had already run for 21220 Kms. In the warranty document it is clearly mentioned that if there is any defect in the tyres of the car then the liability is of the manufacturer of the tyres. In the present case the tyres have been manufactured by M/s Bridgestone Tyres Co.  The complainant was required to implead the M/s Bridgestone Tyres Co. being a necessary party in the arrays of the opposite parties in the head-note of the complaint, but he did not do so. The defects of the car pointed out by complainant were duly removed as and when he approached it. Had there being any manufacturing defect in the car in question, it could not have run for 21220 Kms. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant is not only liable to be dismissed on the ground of, for non-joinder of necessary party but on merits also.

                             From the perusal of Job-sheets annexure OP-2/4, annexure OP-2/5 and annexure OP-2/6, it is evident that the first free service of the car in question was done on 19.05.2012, when it had run for 1321 Kms. second free service was done on 11.08.2012, when the car had run for 10176 Kms. and third free service was done on 03.11.2012, when the car had run for 17068 Kms and there was no complaint about any defect in the car in question. From the perusal of repair order annexure C-5 reveals that on 10.12.2012 the complainant complained about the following defects in the car i.e.

1. Cracks/bubbles appeared in all the four tyres.
2. There was unwanted noise in the steering system.
3. Pick of the car was very low.
4. There was a starting problem.
5. There was a missing problem in the engine at the law speed.

                   The plea of the complainant is that even after repeated repairs, the engineers of the Ops failed to remove the defects which clearly shows that there is manufacturing in car in question. On the other hand the stand of the OPs No. 1 & 2 is that there is no manufacturing defect in the car in question, as the defects referred to above have already been rectified. To corroborate this fact the OP No. 2 has drawn our attention to the job-sheet dated 12.09.2016 Annexure OP-2/9. From the perusal of said job-sheet it is revealed that on 12.09.2016 the car had run for 110053 Kms and it was a running repair, there was no complaint regarding defects in the car in question. It may be stated here that no documentary evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove that the defects referred to above could not be rectified. Even there is no report of any expert in the field automobiles/mechanics, to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the car in question.         In the case of Rajiv Gulati Vs.  TATA Engineering Lokomotive Co. Ltd. and others Vol. III 2013 CPJ 273(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that onus was on the complainant to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Vehicle was extensively used for two year and it had covered distance of more than 48000 Kms, prior to filing of complaint, there cannot be any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Taking all these facts into consideration we are of the view that, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defects in the car in question. Regarding the defects in the tyres, even there is no report of any expert from which the defects in the tyre could be established. Moreover, in term No. 3 of the warranty policy annexure OP-1/2, it is categorically mentioned that the batteries, tyres and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by HIML. Complainant has neither impleaded the manufacturer of the tyres as opposite party nor has produced any document on the record to establish that the complainant had visited the manufacturer of the tyres or its authorized agent for removal of the defects in the tyres or replacement of the tyres. Be that as it may, we hold that complainant has failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits consequently we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 15.04.2021

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)         (Ruby Sharma)      (Neena Sandhu)

            Member                       Member                   President