Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/397/2011

Shivam Srivastava S/o. Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Khanna Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Anand

10 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 397 of 2011.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 26.4.2011.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 10.11.2015

Shivam Srivastava son of Sh. Ashok Kumar, age 30 years, resident of House No. 345, Raja Ram Colony, Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1.  M/s Khanna Automobiles ( Khanna Car Plaza), Aggarsain Chowk, Jagadhri, through its Managing Director/ Partner/Proprietor, Authorized dealers and Service Center of Huindai Motor India Limited.
2. Hyundai Motor India Limited, through Mr. H.W. Park, Chief Executive Officer, Plot H-1, Sip Cot Industrial Park, Irrirrungattakotai, Shree Parembudur Taluk Kanchipuras, District, Chennai 602105, India.                                                                                                                                          …opposite parties.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainant.  

                Sh. P.K.Sibal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                Sh. Ramneek Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.      

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Shivam Srivastava has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents                   ( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation on account of depreciation of market value of the car, mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is registered owner of Hyundai i-10 car bearing registration No. HR-02W-7027 which was purchased on 18.7.2010. The complainant had gone to Radaur in order to attend the Rasam Pagri on 6.10.2010 and parked his car out side the place of ceremony and when he came back he saw that some unknown vehicle had hit the car of complainant near the back side door of the right side of the car thereby causing dent therein. The complainant handed over his car for repair to OP No.1 who is authorized service centre/dealer of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. i.e. OP No.2 on 8.10.2010 and it was promised by OP No.1 that car will be returned after repair within 7 days but it was repaired by 18.10.2010 i.e. after 10 days. When the complainant went to take the delivery of repaired car, he saw that the paint which was done over the dented portion of the back side door of the driver side was not proper and the paint was flowing down sprinkles and the paint had also fallen on other parts of the body due to which on the whole body of the car sprinkle spots of small size had appeared. While doing the paint on the repaired portion the concerned person/mechanic acted negligently and did not close down the window panel nor the whole body of the car was covered. Due to which, the sprinkles of paint had fallen in side and outside the car. When the matter was taken up with the incharge of the service centre of OP No.1, he told that their exhaust fan had gone out of order and so the sprinkles of paint had fallen over the whole body of the car. Even dented portion was also not properly painted. The complainant went to Mr. Khanna owner of OP No.1 and made complaint to him in this regard but he showed his helplessness and said that he can do nothing about it. He was further told that a Manager had been appointed in this regard and he would satisfy the complainant and car would be returned to him in good condition and the complainant was asked to come on next day i.e. on 20.10.2010 and when on next day the complainant went for taking delivery, a painter was rubbing the paint of the car and whole of the body of the car weak rubbed, due to which the original paint of the car came off  and on the body of the car the sprinkles of car remained as all the places of the car could not be rubbed. In this way, the whole paint of new car of the complainant was damaged by the worker of OP No.1. On this, complainant made a complaint to the Hyundai  Customer Care and on their call complainant on 19.11.2010 handed over the car to OP No.1 again for do something in that respect and again the same process of rubbing was repeated and whole shine of the car was spoiled. Due to intervention of OP No.2 some parts mentioned in Annexure R-5 i.e. blade assy wiper, moulding assy, strip etc. as mentioned in Annexure R-5 were replaced by OP No.1. However, the new car of the complainant could not get its original shining/appearance and due to the negligence of the staff of OP No.1, the value of the car has diminished and car in question lost its value up to Rs. 25%. The car of the complainant gives a look of old car. These facts are duly proved by the surveyor report dated 10.3.2011 (Annexure-8) of Sh. Ashok Kumar approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor which is reproduced here as under:

The said vehicle met an accident on 6.10.2010, the rear RI-IS door was found damaged alongwith minor other damages as well. Since the vehicle was insured, the claim was lodged. The estimate of repair was prepared by repairer M/s Khanna Car Plaza, Jagadhri. The repair was carried out and the dented parts were painted, unfortunately by untrained person of repairer M/s Khanna Car Plaza, Jagadhri ( The authorized dealer of Sales and Service.). 

The paint was of substandard rating, the complaint was made by owner Sh. Shivam Srivastava. During repair of bad painting work (while repainting) the skilled work did not observe the standard practice of covering other parts of vehicle to insure that the paint spray does not fall upon the other parts. This resulted in to the spray of paint partially fell upon headlight, taillight, side plastic covering, dash board and glass, upholstery  of the vehicle and various other metallic parts, such as rop roof, side doors, rear diggi glass and windscreen glass etc.

On complaint, again the repairer M/s Khanna Car Plaza Jagadhri who made the repair tried to remove the paint stains over various parts, such as headlight, taillight, side PVC covering, dashboard, upholstery and metallic parts, glass parts etc. with the result the various parts found scratches etc. the vehicle does not appear to be in the showroom condition. Hence, the market value for the said vehicle fell substantially by approximately 25%.

In my best opinion, the valuation of the said vehicle is Rs. 3,00,000/-             ( Rupees Three Lac only).

I arranged the few photographs, which are enclosed. This report is issued without prejudice.

                        The complainant lastly prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement separately by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, concealment of material facts, non joinder and mis joinder and on merit it has been admitted that complainant is owner of Hyundai i-10 car in question and the same was received by OP No.1 for accidental repair on 7.10.2010 and after necessary repairs the car was duly returned to the complainant on 18.10.2010 in Okay condition. It has been specifically denied that OP No.1 or any of its employee/ agent had acted negligently and carelessly in any manner as stated by the complainant and it has been further specifically denied that any paint, as alleged therein, had fallen inside and outside of the car as claimed by the complainant. It has been further admitted that as per record available with the OP No.1, after the online complaint made by the complainant on 18.10.2010, the car was brought by the complainant to the Service centre of OP No.1 on 24.12.2010, when as per the mandate issued by OP No.2 being the manufacturer, the OP No.1 opened a job card and changed all parts which the complainant claimed were superficial damages from paint spray, although no damage was apparent to the naked eye however merely to maintain good customer relations the needful was done and spare parts worth Rs. 5245.60/- were replaced free of costs which is evident from Annexure R-5. Further all other allegations were also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement separately by taking some preliminary objections such as no cause of action, not maintainable, without limitation and on merit it has been stated that neither any specific allegation has been made against OP No.2 operates with all its dealers on a principal to principal basis and errors/omission, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. OP No.2, being a manufacturer of the Hyundai Car is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales or services of the car on the part of dealer cannot be fastened upon the OP No.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.2.

5.                     As the complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 3.8.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copy of Invoice dated 18.10.2010 of car in question issued by Khanna Car Plaza Annexure-1 &2 , Photo copy of E-mail sent to OP No.2 by complainant Annexure-3, Photo copy of Registration Certificate Annexure-4 & 5, Photo copy of appointment letter dated 25.10.2010 issued by OP No.1 to complainant Annexure-6, Photo copy of letter for apology for inconvenience issued by OP No.1 to complainant Annexure-7, Photo copy of surveyor report dated 10.3.2011 Annexure-8 & 9, Photo copy of RC Annexure-10  with the complaint in support of his complaint.  

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Manohar Lal Wadhwa, Service Manager of OP No.1 as Annexure R.1/A and documents such as Photo copy of authority letter as Annexure R1/1, Photo copy of warranty policy as Annexure R1/2, Photo copy of repair order as Annexure R1/3,  Repair order Annexure R1/4, Photo copy of screen report of vehicle as Annexure R1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. 

7.                     Counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Manish Kumar, Assistant Manager, Legal & Secretarial, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. as Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in their reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                      The only plea of the complainant is that op No.1 not carried out the painting properly and while doing painting on the repaired portion of the car in question, the concerned person/mechanic acted negligently and did not close down the window panel nor the whole body of the car was covered due to which the sprinkles of paint had fallen in side and outside of the car. Even the paint which was done over the dented portion of the back side door of the driver side was not proper and paint was flowing down  and sprinkle of the paint had also fallen on the other part of the body due to which on the body of the car sprinkle spot of small size had appeared. Further the paint of new car of the complainant was damaged by the workers of OP No.1 by rubbing the paint of the car to remove the sprinkles. The worker/mechanic of OP No.1 tried to remove the sprinkles from the whole of the body of car in question but the new car of the complainant could not get its original shining/appearance and due to the negligence of the staff of OP No.1. In this way, the value of the car has diminished and car in question lost his value up to Rs. 25% and draw our attention towards the report of approved surveyor and loss assessor dated 10.3.2011 Annexure-8. Further it is the contention of the complainant that the fault/negligence of OP No.1 is also proved from Annexure-3 Email sent by the Manufacturer company and further from Annexure-7 Apology for inconvenience letter written by OP No.1 to the complainant. This fact has also been admitted by OP No.1 that they have received the car of the complainant for further replacement of affected part due to paint on 24.12.2010 and some parts worth of Rs. 5245.60 paise were replaced free of costs.

10.                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 Sh. P.K.Sibal hotly argued that all the allegations in the complaint are totally manipulated and are false. The car of the complainant was duly returned to the complainant on 18.10.2010 in Okay condition and no negligence or careless act in any manner was on the part of staff of OP No.1. However, due to the gesture of the company some parts were replaced free of costs. Further learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has sold his car in question to one named Sh. Sunil Bathla on 23.2.2012 which is evident from Annexure R-6 verification obtained from Registering Authority, Jagadhri and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.2 also argued at length that OP No.2 is only the manufacturer of the car in question and have no concern whatsoever with the activities done by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.2.

12.                   After going through the contention of complainant and arguments advanced by counsels for both the OPs, it is not disputed that complainant purchased Hyundai i-10 car on 18.7.2010 which was damaged on 6.10.2010 and got repaired from the workshop/service centre of OP No.1. From the perusal of Annexure-8 Report of approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Ashok Kumar, it is evident that the repair work was carried out and dented parts were painted by untrained person of repairer M/s Khanna Car Plaza Jagadhri. It has been specifically mentioned by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor in his report that painting work was not done by the skilled worker as he did not observe the standard practice of covering other parts of vehicle to ensure that the paint spray does not fall upon the other parts, resulted into the spray of paint partially fell upon headlight, taillight, side plastic covering, dash board and glass, upholstery  of the vehicle and various other metallic parts, such as top roof, side doors, rear diggi glass and windscreen glass etc. and the vehicle does not appear to be in the show room condition, so, the market value of the said vehicle fell substantially by approximately 25%. Further from the Annexure R-5 it is also evident that some parts of the car in question had been replaced by OP No.1 due to intervention of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.2 which is also proves the contention of complainant. The only plea of the OP No.2 is that the complainant has sold his car is not tenable because the complainant sold his car after long time of 2 ½ years.  Further the OP No.1 failed to file any cogent evidence to rebut the report of the surveyor Sh. Ashok Kumar approved and independent surveyor Annexure R-8. Even the OP No.1 failed to file any affidavit of mechanic/painter who carried out the denting painting of the car in question in support of their contention. The case of the complainant further proved from the contents of para No.8 of the written statement on merit filed by OP No.1 in which the OP No.1 has admitted that due to the intervention of OP No.2 manufacturer some parts were replaced. It means, the complainant might have faced some hardship and suffered financial loss due to the negligence act of the mechanic/ worker of OP No.1.

13.                   So after going through the above noted discussion, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. However, the complainant failed to file any cogent evidence regarding actual loss suffered by him as the complainant has not filed any affidavit regarding the sale consideration and purchase value of the car from which we could assess the loss but the complainant is entitled to get some compensation to compensate the loss and for mental agony and harassment and regarding this an amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be sufficient.

14.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant against OP No.1 and direct the OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony as well as harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses and other expenses incurred for getting the surveyor report etc. Complaint qua OP No.2 is hereby dismissed. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 10.11.2015.                    

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.