Haryana

StateCommission

A/1498/2017

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVEEN RATHEE AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

30 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No.           :         1498 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution        :         08.12.2017

                                                Date of Decision                   :         30.10.2018

 

 

1. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 2^nd, 5^th and 6^th Floor, Corporate one Banni Building, Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025 through its Manager.
2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Irrugattukottai NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram Distt. Tamil Nadu-602117 through its Manager.

          …… Appellants

 

Versus

1. Naveen Rathee S/o Mahabir Singh, R/o H. No. 95, Gali No. 3, New Nandwani Nagar, Sonepat.
2. Malwa Auto Sales (P) Ltd. Kundli Service Centre, NH-1, 31^st KM Stone, GT Road, Kundli Sonepat through its Manager.
3. Orion Hyundai Service Centre, 17, Mehrauli Road, Opp. Kalyani Hospital, Adjacent Govt. Girls College, Gurgaon-122001 through its Manager. 

……. Respondents

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. Vaibhav Jain, counsel for the appellant.

                             Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, counsel for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2 & 3.

 

O R D E R

 

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 195 dated 25.01.2018 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases singly in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by appellant/complainant against the respondents/OPs has been allowed.  It was observed by the Learned District Forum as under:-

“The respondents No. 3 and 4 have placed on record, two job sheets. But the same are not exhibited. However, despite this, the same were considered by this Forum in the evidence of the respondent no. 3 and 4. On the other hand, the complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents have placed on record the copies of e-mail Ex. C10 to Ex.C17. In the said e-mails, the complainant has apprised about the RPM Fluctuation and engine problem. In our view, RPM fluctuation is the major fault in the vehicle and due to RPM fluctuation, the engine can’t get full support and the vehicle cannot run smoothly and properly. There is also nothing on record from the side of the respondents no.1, 3 and 4 as to what reply to the e-mail was sent to the complainant by them. The respondent no. 3 and 4 have also failed to produce any kind of nothing etc. of their engineer to prove as to what report regarding the vehicle of the complainant was made by their engineers. From the e-mails Ex.C10 to Ex.C17, it is clearly proved that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle due to RPM fluctuation, Gear Box Stuck, loud noise in engine when pressing the accelerator and AC stop running after three hours and the respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 failed to remove the same to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further the respondent no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have failed to produce the job sheet regarding the vehicle of the complainant. Why the job sheets in respect of the vehicle of the complainant, has not produced before this forum, the best reasons are known to them. The job sheets were required to be produced before this Forum because these were the important documents to prove the bonafide of any of the party. Non-production of the job sheets by the respondents no. 1,2 3 and 4 draw an adverse inference and create suspicion in the mind of this Forum and to some extent, it proves that the complainant was continuously in touch with the respondents no. 1,2,3 and 4 regarding the defects of the vehicle i.e. RPM fluctuation, AC stop working after 3 hours, gear box struck and loud noise in the engine when pressing the accelerator. However, in our view, it is the respondents No. 3 and 4 who being the manufacturing company of the car, have failed to redress the grievances of the complainant particularly when the complainant was continuously approaching the respondents by paying his personal visits as well as through e-mails for the removal of the defects developed in the vehicle, but all his efforts have gone into waste because for the redressal of his grievances, he has to file the present complaint against the respondents before this Forum. Accordingly, we held the respondent no. 3 and 4 to be deficient in their service and thus, direct the respondents no. 3 and 4 to remove the defects i.e. RPM fluctuation, gear box struck, loud noise in engine when press accelerator & AC of the Car of the complainant at their own cost. The respondent no. 3 and 4 are also directed to get remove the above said defects of the car from their authorized service centre and if it is not possible for the respondents no. 3 and 4 to remove the above defects, then they replace the engine of the vehicle with new engine and they shall further extend the warranty period for another one year from the date of replacement of the engine because to some extent, RPM fluctuation, gear box stuck and loud noise in engine seems to be defect in the engine and that’s why the same were not removed by the respondents despite their best efforts.

As far as the compensation is concerned, the complainant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents on account of deficient services, harassment and mental agony etc. In our view, the compensation claimed by the complainant is on a very higher side. However, since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no. 3 and 4 being the manufacturing company of the car, because despite his personal visits and despite his repeated requested made through e-mail etc., his grievances were not removed by the respondents no. 3 and 4. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no. 3 and 4 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and mental agony etc.

With these observations, findings and directions the present complaint stands allowed.”                   

 

                             The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased one car i20 having registration no. HR10Y-4737 from respondent no. 1 worth Rs.782771/-. The complainant got two services from respondent no. 1 upto 19000 km. The complainant paid Rs.7200/- to respondent no.1 for the third service of the vehicle. But after 10-15 days the complainant came to know about the problem of RPM fluctuation in the car. The complainant made a complaint in this regard and the car was taken to service centre, where the engineer got updated the software of the car, but the problem remained the same. Thereafter, the complainant took the car to Car Care Clinic Centre Sonepat and the video of problem of RPM fluctuation was shown and they assured that the said problem will be removed within two hours, but it was the false assurance as the problem still persist. After running 29000 km of fourth service on 15.1.2017, the complainant went to respondent no.1 for service and told about the problem and they assured that they will remove the problem and they charged an amount of Rs.11040/- from the complainant. But the complainant noticed that there is still a problem of RPM fluctuation and gear box. On 5.2.2017, the complainant again went to the service station of respondent no.1 and told about the problem of RPM fluctuation, gear box and AC problem and they called the complainant on 11.2.2017 and it was told to the complainant that the problem has not been resolved and assured that on 12.2.2017 delivery of the vehicle will be handed over to the complainant. The complainant also faced the same problem as well as engine sound and the car used to spread black smoke. On 15.2.2017 the complainant again made a complaint through e-mail to the service station and on the assurance of respondent no.3, the complainant took the car on 18.2.2017 to the service station of respondent no.1 and they assured to remove the problem of the car. On 19.2.2017, when the complainant went to service station, the said car was lying in bad position and some scratches were also found on the body of the car. The complainant made a complaint in this regard, but of no use. However, they assured that now th4ere is no problem in the car and the complainant took the delivery of the said car and on use, it was noticed that the problem is the same. On 28.2.2017, the complainant took his car to orion Hyundai Gurgaon for removal of the above said defects and the engineer of the said company asked the complainant that the problem of the car will be removed within one day and on 1.3.2017 the complainant took the delivery, but it was also the false assurance, because the problem still persist and due to this wrongful act of the respondents, the complainant has suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment. This act of the respondents amount to deficiency in service on its part.

                             Upon notice respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 appeared whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.7.2017. The respondent no.1 filed written statement and submitted that at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle after third service, there was no complaint of any kind from the side of the complainant. On 15.1.2017, the complainant brought the car to the service station of the respondent no.1 with complaint of RPM fluctuation and the same was removed by updating the software of the vehicle. After third service the vehicle was run for 29000 km properly. Fourth service was conducted by respondent no.1 on 15.1.2017 whereas gearbox problem was alleged by the complainant on 5.2.2017 and no such problem was found in the vehicle after due inspection and test driver and the vehicle was found satisfactory and the complainant took the delivery of the same. There was no problem in gear box or functioning of AC. The complainant has leveled false and baseless allegations against the respondent no.1. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, he is not entitled to get any kind of relief qua respondent no.1 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Respondents no. 3 and 4 filed written statement and submitted that vehicle had run about 31110 km within a short span of one and half years when allegedly some noise was coming from the engine. The complainant has admitted in his complaint that there was an alleged problem of RPM fluctuation after the 3^rd free service at 18931 kms. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected but no defect was observed in the car and the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant. As per their information, the alleged problem of RPM fluctuation was resolved but the complainant was unsatisfied as he alleged that the car is badly positioned due to which there are scratches on it. The complainant is trying to extort money from the respondents no. 3 and 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                             Complainant and respondents no. 1, 3 & 4 led evidence in support of their respective claims.

                             On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as noticed in the opening para of this order.

                             Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellants-OP No. 3 & 4 has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of respondent no 2 & 3.  I did not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely, and therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal and going through the case file

                             I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no. 1 and perused the case file thoroughly.

The learned counsel for appellants/OP No. 3 & 4 has contended that District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that primary burden to prove the manufacturing defect was on the respondent No.1/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the appellants acted in bonafide manner and have provided the best quality service to the respondent no. 1/complainant. It was not the duty of the appellants to look into the servicing part/retail sale of the vehicle. However, as a good will gesture, the appellant had tried to resolve the issue. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the appellants and prayed that appeal of the appellants may be allowed.  

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no.1/complainant has contended that District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the appellants.

I have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.1. In the above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case I am of the considered view that there is manufacturing defect in the engine of the car. Respondent No. 2/OP No.1 and respondent No.3/Op No. 3 is the authorized service centre of the appellants and they are also deficient in their service.   

In this view of the matter I am of the considered view that the District Forum has taken the correct view by allowing the complaint of the complainant but the Respondent No. 2/OP No.1 and respondent No.3/Op No. 3 are also deficient in their service and they have to be directed to compensate the complainant.

In view of the above discussion, the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the District Forum, Sonepat is modified to the extent that all the OPs/appellants and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the complainant.

The order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the District Forum, Sonepat is modified on the terms indicated above and there is no reason to disturb the other directions issued by the District Forum, Sonepat.

With this modification, the appeal is disposed of.

The statutory amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

                                      

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

30.10.2018                                                                      Presiding Member

                                                                                 Addl. Bench-IInd