Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/93

MS Meenu Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pioneer Hyundai MRG Auto Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Kapoor Adv.

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

   Consumer Complaint No. :   93 of  12.02.2015

Date of Decision         :   08.12.2015 

 

Ms.Meenu Kapoor wife of Sh.Sunil Kapoor son of Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block 1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.M/s Pioneer Hyundai MRG Auto Pvt. Ltd., B-XXIX, 104/1, Sherpur, G.T.Road, Ludhiana-141003, through the concerned/M.D.

2.M/s Pioneer Hyundai MRG Auto Pvt. Ltd., Service Centre, 2693/2, New Kuldeep Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana through its concerned authorized person.

3.Sh.Karamjit Singh, Service Manager, Service Centre, M/s Pioneer Hyundai MRG Auto Pvt.Ltd., 2693/2, New Kuldeep Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.

4.M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited, Irrugattukottai, NH-4, Sriperumbudur, Talukakandchipuram, District Chennai-(TN)-602117 through its head Customer Service/Managing Director.

 

…Opposite parties

 

   (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.Sunil Kapoor, representative.

For Op1 to OP3             :        Ex-parte

For OP4                         :         Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate

 

                                                                                O R D E R

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

1.                          This complaint has been filed by Ms.Meenu Kapoor under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that car having model ‘EON Era +’ purchased by the complainant from OP1 which bears the registration No.PB-10-EQ-5227. An amount was paid of Rs.3,35,000/- which was paid vide two transactions i.e. Rs.3 lacs and Rs.35,000/- separately by the complainant to OP1. On 31.3.2014, at the time of taking delivery of the said car, the complainant got its test drive and found that AC assembly and its rear suspension system emanated an awkward noise and this fact was reported to OP1, who assured the complainant that this noise would gradually disappear on its own after some use of the car, but the said fact remained persisted even after use of the car up to 9000 kms. Further, the matter was reported to OP4, the manufacturer. Further alleged that they have provided her the defective car and thus, they have resorted unfair trade practice by selling this car with defects. Complainant also visited the service centre of OP1, who also is impleaded as OP2 on date 21.5.2014, who prepared the job sheet. In the job sheet itself, same defects have been mentioned as rear suspension check, dicky windshield check and A.C.noise. Complainant was made to wait at the service centre for about 6-7 hours on 21.5.2014, but said service centre did not take constructive steps to remove the above said defects. Complainant further visited OP2 on 9.8.2014 after Service Manager namely Sh.Karamjit Singh of OP2 telephonically called the complainant to bring the car for the rectification of the said defects as mentioned above in the car. Despite waiting for a long time at the service centre, OP2 and OP3 ultimately failed to remove the defects. Complainant sent so many letters to OPs also but Ops failed to redress the complaint of the complainant. So present complaint filed with the prayer that OP1 and OP4 be directed to replace the defective car with new flawless one along with tax and fee incurred for the purposes of taxes for its R.C., HSRP as well as expenses for insurance of the vehicle and other misc.expenses or in the alternative, refund the amount of Rs.3,35,000/- along with interest accrued thereon @24% p.a. Compensation of Rs.1 lacs and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- also sought.

2.                Upon proper notices duly served on OP1 to OP3, none appeared on their behalf and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                However, OP4 filed the written reply, in which, it has been alleged while taking preliminary objections that complaint is baseless, frivolous and complainant did not raise the issue at the time of beginning itself when A.C. & suspension were making some noise and as such, it is the complainant who has resorted to abuse of process of law. Further that OP4 being the manufacturer provides guarantee/warranty only for two years for unlimited mileage from the date of delivery of the vehicle to the first purchaser but it does not contemplate any replacement of the vehicle nor refund of the price of the car. There is no such provisions that price of car is refunded as held in various cases as mentioned in para no.4, 5 and 7 of the written statement titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another-I(2006)CPJ-3(SC), M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd., and another vs. M.Moosa, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. B.G.Thakurdesai and another-1986-85(N.C.) and (S.C.) on Consumer Cases 362(NS), Dr.Hema Vasantial Dakoria vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and others-II(2005)CPJ-102(N.C.); C.N.Anantharam vs. Fiat India Ltd. and others-(2011)1-SCC-460 and R.Baskar vs. D.N.Udani-IV(2006)CPJ-257(N.C.). On merits, replied that OP4 is working on ‘Principal to Principal’ basis and there is no privity of contract/service between OP4 and complainant. As such, liability of manufacturer i.e. OP4 is limited to its warranty obligation only. Further, denied all the contents of remaining paras. OP4 also attached the warranty conditions as mentioned under the warranty whereby warranty period is mentioned and what is covered and what is not covered also mentioned.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, Sh.Sunil Kapoor, representative for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA of Ms. Meenu Kapoor, in which, she has reiterated all the contents of the complaint and further, he has placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op4 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Manish Kumar, Employ of OP4, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the Op4 and even tendered documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments on behalf of complainant submitted, but those are not submitted by the Op4.  Oral arguments of Op4 were heard and records gone through minutely.  

 7.               During the course of arguments, representative of complainant argued that the new car was delivered to the complainant by OPs with some defects, who falsely assured that these defects will vanish at its own after some running of the car for some kilometers, but the defects still persisted in the car even at the time of filing of the complaint. Thus, OPs are found to be deficient in service.

8.                Rebutting the allegations of complainant, counsel for the OP4 contended that complainant has concealed the material facts qua the earlier complaint filed in this very case. As such, complainant is not coming before this Forum with clean hands. Further, there is no plea or evidence that manufacturing defect exists in the car and it is also not understood that the complainant did not bring these defects to knowledge of OPs in the very beginning i.e. at the time of delivery of the car. Moreover, OP4      and OP1 and OP2 are working on principal to principal basis. So, OP4 is not liable to the complainant in any respect and there is no provision for the refund of the price of the car. However, as per warranty conditions only, the defects in the car can be cured under the warranty within the warranty period.

9.                It is evident that the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP1 vide invoice dated 31.3.2014 Ex.C1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,35,449/- and as per Ex.C2 which is the job Card dated 21.5.2014 issued by OP2 qua the repair of the car in question. The defects mentioned in the job card are “rear suspension check”, dicky windshield check and A.C. noise and this job card was prepared just after the elapse of 1 ½ months from the date of delivery i.e.31.3.2014 of new car. As per Ex.C3 which is also the job card dated 9.8.2014 issued by OP2, vide which, the same defects have been shown pending by the OP2, meaning thereby that OP2 failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and as such, for not removing the defects inspite of elapse of 6-7 months, OP1 and Op2 are found to be deficient in service, whereas, liability of OP4   cannot     established, who being the manufacturer, worked with OP1 and Op2 on ‘principal to principal’ basis and there is no privity of contract/service between the complainant and OP4. Op3 being the employee also not personally liable.

10.              Op1 to OP3 being proceeded ex-parte, no defence could be taken on their behalf.

11.               Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed in terms that OP1 and OP2 will repair the car of the complainant with respect to the defects mentioned in the job card dated 21.5.2014 of OP2. Further, OP1 and OP2 are burdened to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Liability of paying compensation and litigation costs by OP1 and OP2 to the complainant will be joint and several. Compliance of these orders be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of this order. Copies of order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 

(Sat Paul Garg)                                 (G.K.Dhir)  

Member                                            President

Announced in open Forum

on 08.12.2015

Gurpreet Sharma