DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2024.
Present : Sri Vinay Menon .V, President.
: Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.
Date of filing:13.12.2022.
CC/248/2022
Sameer Ahamed.T.A, - Complainant
Aged 35 years, S/o.Abdul Basheer,
Manchira, Nalleppilly,
Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad Dt.-678 101.
(By Adv.T.V.Krishnadas)
Vs
1. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., -Opposite Parties
Regd. Office and Factory at Plot
No.H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park,
Irrungattukotai, Sri Perumpudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District,
Tamilnadu-602 117.
2. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,
Regd. Office and Factory at Plot
No.H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park,
Irrungattukotai, Sri Perumpudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District,
Tamilnadu-602 117.
Rep. by Managing Director/Manager/Authorised signatory.
(OP1 & 2-By Adv.Jithin Paul Varghese)
3. M/s. Grand Hyundai, 2nd Mile,
Kallekkad, Palakkad,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Manager or Authorised signatory.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
By Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant purchased a Hyundai Car model Venue 1.5 CRDIMIX manufactured by opposite parties 1 and 2 from their authorised dealer, the 3rd opposite party on 18.11.2021 (Registration No.KL-70/G 1908). The vehicle is having warranty of three years. The complainant’s vehicle encountered the following problems;
a) The vehicle was having low fuel efficiency, since the first servicing, which could not be cured in spite of repeated requests from the complainant.
b) The repair work of the car was not done properly after an accident.
c) The warning light was continuously illuminating while driving the car.
d) While driving to Valparai along with family on 10.09.2022, the car suddenly switched off.
e) The warning light issue continued ever after continued efforts by the opposite parties which indicate that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect.
Due to this, the complainant could not use his vehicle for plying to his office and thereby losing income to pay the EMIs of the loan he availed for purchasing the vehicle.
Hence, this complaint is filed seeking replacement of the car or refund of the cost of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for financial loss and mental agony apart from cost of litigation.
2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version. The 3rd opposite parties did not file version.
The contentions of the opposite parties are;
a) The warning light issue is due to the faulty driving pattern of the complainant/driver.
b) The warning light issue started after the car met with an accident on 11.06.2022 and accident adversely affected the performance of the vehicle and accidental repair & damage to vehicle caused due to accident are not covered under the warranty of the vehicle.
c) The manufacturing defect is to be proved by an expert.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties, the following issues were framed.
a) Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defects?
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
d) Reliefs as to cost/compensation.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A11 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of the E-mail issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, Ext.A2 is the copy of E-mail issued by the opposite parties, Ext.A3 is the copy of the photograph of the vehicle, Ext.A4 is the copy of the E-mail communication. Ext.A5 is the copy of the order booking form and warrant details issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A6 is the copy of the warrant status issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, Ext.A7 is the copy of the invoice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, Ext.A8 is the copy of the insurance policy issued by the M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ext.A9 is the copy of the invoice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A10 is the copy of the Tax License issued by the Government of Kerala to the complainant and Ext.A11 is the copy of E-Receipt issued by the Government of Kerala to the complainant.
The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 as evidence, which are the relevant pages of owner’s manual explaining the modus operandi of the Diesel particulate fitter in the vehicle which causes the warning light issue.
After the evidence of the complainant was closed, he filed I.A.No.700/2023 to reopen the evidence and appoint an expert commissioner in order to establish the alleged manufacturing defect which was dismissed as being “highly belated”.
5. ISSUE NO.1
The basic question here is whether the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defect. None of the evidence marked gives us any indication as to the defect pointed ie., the ‘warning signal issue’ is a manufacturing defect. The complainant further failed to get any expert Commissioner to inspect and file his report in time to the effect. In the result, we hold that the manufacturing defect is not proved by adducing proper evidence.
ISSUE NO.2
Though the complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect, as the problem is still persisting, be it manufacturing defect or otherwise, the opposite parties have the responsibility to rectify the defect by way of repair or replacement of respective parts. Though the main argument putforth by the opposite parties for the warning light issue is the faulty driving of the vehicle, it is mentioned in Paragraph No.K of the proof affidavit that the defect might have been caused due to the accident taken place on 11.06.2022. If it happened due to the accident, the authorised service centre of the manufacturer should be able to fix the problem by way of their expert repair or replacement of respective part, if any, either under warranty or insurance cover as the case may be. The authorised service personnel of the company is bound to rectify the defects covered under warranty during the warranty period or on payment or insurance cover basis after the warranty period during the life period of vehicle. The failure to do this is a clear case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
ISSUE NO.3 & 4
As the manufacturing defect could not be proved, the complainant is not entitled to get replacement of vehicle or refund of the cost of the vehicle as demanded. However, the complainant has the right to get the defect rectified by the opposite parties. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove how the compensation for financial loss is arrived at.
6. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the following;
1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to get the warning light issue rectified through their authorised dealer, the 3rd opposite party or to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
2. Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, and;
3. Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above direction shall be complied within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment or compliance.
Pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of February, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon .V,
President.
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N .K,
Member.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The copy of the E-mail issued by the opposite parties to the complainant regarding Registration No.KL 70G198.
Ext.A2: The copy of E-mail issued by the opposite parties to the complainant DPF WARNING LAMP ISSUE.
Ext.A3: The copy of the photograph of the vehicle Registration No. KL 70G198.
Ext.A4: The copy of the E-mail communication details.
Ext.A5: The copy of the order booking form and warrant details issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ext.A6: The copy of the warrant status issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ext.A7: The copy of the invoice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ext.A8: The copy of the insurance policy issued by the M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. To the complainant.
Ext.A9: The copy of the tax invoice issued by the 3rd opposite parties to the complainant.
Ext.A10: The copy of the Tax License issued by the Government of Kerala to the complainant.
Ext.A11: The copy of E-Receipt issued by the Government of sKerala to the complainant.
Ext.B1: Owner’s manual explaining the modus operandi of DPF.
Cost : 15,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
