Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/454/2015

Kanwaljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Dinesh Mahto

26 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/454/2015
Date of Institution	:	21/07/2015
Date of Decision	:	26/05/2016

 

 

Kanwaljit Singh s/o Sh. Ishwar Singh Bhela, age about 72 years r/o #1662, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited, 5^th & 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025, India through its Managing Director/CEO.

2.     M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited, North Regional office-1, DLF Building, Tower B, 3^rd Floor RGCT Park, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3.     LG Hyundai (Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.) Tribune Chowk, 181/3B, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh through its Prop./Partner.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Dinesh Mahto, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Parminder Kaur, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-3.

                                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         This consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the complainant, Sh. Kanwaljit Singh against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), seeking refund of the consideration amount of Rs.9,88,600/- alongwith interest @ 18% besides compensation and litigation expenses in respect of the Hyundai Verna car purchased by him.

                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Hyundai DRDi SX (1.6 L) car on 30.1.2015 from OP-3 after making the total sale consideration of Rs.9,80,000/- alongwith an amount of Rs.3,600/- for the tax etc.  24 months warranty was given for the car on the date of delivery.  Since the very beginning, the car started giving troubles. On the second day of purchase, there was a cracking sound in the engine of the car which stopped after a few minutes. This problem was immediately brought to the notice of OP-3. On 3.2.2015, after a drive of five minutes, the car stopped on the road giving jerks and without acceleration. The complainant informed the dealer/OP-3. The sale person, Mr. Ravi came with two mechanics to verify the problem and the car was towed to the workshop.  The complainant had to take a taxi, but, he could not reach the meeting well in time and lost chance of getting a profitable business.  In the evening, the said car was returned after necessary repairs and as per their technical department, they had to change two injectors. No technical report was given even in spite of demand. Thereafter, again many kinds of problems were there like engine getting switched off suddenly, sometimes giving abnormal noise and sometimes giving jerk. On 20.5.2015, when the daughter of the complainant was driving the car, suddenly there was a strange noise in the engine and she was stuck on the road in Sector 9, Chandigarh. With the help of customer care, the car was again towed away to OP-3. The car was again repaired and handed over to the complainant. It is alleged that since then the car is not running like a new car and is creating problems. None of the new cars purchased by the complainant gave such like problems. It is alleged that the car has some manufacturing defect that is why it is giving frequent problems. The complainant gave a legal notice to the OPs to return the entire amount, but, without any success. Hence, this complaint.

2.         OPs 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement alleging that the complaint is frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is further pleaded that the allegations of manufacturing defect in the car in question are false and misleading.  It is alleged that the car had covered 9198 kms. on 25.9.2015 in about 8 months from the date of purchase which could not have been possible if the vehicle had some manufacturing defect.  It is also alleged that the best services as per warranty policy were always provided to the complainant whenever the vehicle reported to the workshop with any concern.  It is further alleged that neither the refund of the purchase price nor the replacement of the car can be ordered because some defects can be repaired.
3.         Written statement filed by OPs 1 & 2 was adopted by OP-3 also.
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
7.         It is pertinent to mention that in the rejoinder filed by the complainant to the written statement of OPs 1 & 2, the complainant relinquished his claim with regard to his prayer No.1 i.e. refund of sale price of the car alongwith interest. However, the complainant pressed upon his demand of compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh and Rs.25,000/;- as litigation expenses.
8.         The complainant has failed to produce any evidence on record to prove that there has been any manufacturing defect in the car.  In absence of any cogent evidence that there is a manufacturing defect in the car, even if there has been some frequent breakdown in the car, it cannot be said that there is a manufacturing defect in it. Since, there is no manufacturing defect in the car, so there can be no deficiency in service by OPs 1 & 2.
9.         The affidavit of the complainant proves that after purchasing the car on 30.1.2015, there was cracking sound in the engine and the engine of the car stopped after a few minutes.  On 3.2.2015, after a drive of 5 minutes, the car stopped on the road giving jerks and then it was towed away to the workshop of OP-3. Annexure C-6, which is a copy of the job card dated 3.2.2015, supports the contention of the complainant and this job card proves that there was a sound in the engine which was even found by the mechanics of the company. It is also proved that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of KLG Hyundai by towing.  Annexure C-7, which is a copy of credit invoice, proves that on 12.2.2015, the car was again brought to the workshop, the injectors were cleaned and couple.  The copy of vehicle condition report form/job record (Annexure C-8) proves that the car was brought on 20.5.2015 to the workshop by towing with the complaint of noise in the engine.  The copy of credit invoice (Annexure C-9) proves that the vehicle was repaired and delivered on the next day i.e. 21.5.2015.
10.         Admittedly, the car was repaired free of cost as it was under warranty and nothing was charged from the complainant. It is argued by the learned counsel for OP-3 that since nothing has been charged and the car was immediately repaired, so there has been no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3. He has argued that in
    absence of any deficiency in service or any manufacturing defect, the complainant is not entitled to any type of compensation.
11.         Undisputedly, the complainant purchased a new car on 30.1.2015.  It is proved on the record that on the second day of purchase, the engine of the car started giving cracking sound and on 3.2.2015, it stopped on the road due to mechanical defect and thereafter it was brought to the workshop of OP-3 for repairs by towing.  It is also proved on the record that thereafter again there was breakdown in the car and the car was repaired on 12.2.2015. Again there was breakdown in the car on 20.5.2015 and it was again brought by towing, repaired and handed over on 21.5.2015.  It is not expected that the engine of a brand new car would give cracking sound and the car would stop midway. No doubt the car was repaired and defects were removed by OP-3 free of cost, but, it was the duty of OP-3 before giving delivery of the car to the complainant to have a thorough checking of the vehicle and, in case of any defect, the said vehicle was not to be delivered to the complainant. The frequent breakdowns in the car is a clear indicator that when the car was delivered at that time no proper checking was made by OP-3 which resulted in inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. For the first time when the car was brought and repaired, even at that time, no proper repair was made that is why after a few days, there was again breakdown. After repairs on 12.2.2015, there was again breakdown on 20.5.2015. This fact clearly proves that there was deficiency in the services provided by OP-3.  Had OP-3 carefully checked the engine of the car at the time of delivery, there was remote possibility of such breakdown of the car.  So, we have no hesitation to hold that there has been clear deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 which resulted in inconvenience and mental harassment to the complainant.  The complainant had to hire a taxi in the midway of his journey and his daughter had also to stop in the midway of journey.  So, for the inconvenience caused to the complainant, he is entitled to compensation from OP-3.
12.         Since there has been no manufacturing defect in the car and now there is no claim for replacement of the car, so, the complaint of the complainant against OPs 1 & 2 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
13.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed qua OP-3. The same is accordingly partly allowed. OP-3 is directed as under :-

(i)     To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service as well as mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(ii)    To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 

14.         This order be complied with by OP-3 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
26/05/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President