THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 69/2014

Dated this the 24^th day of September 2018.

                     (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.    Hon’ble      :  President)

                          Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                         : Member

                          Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB              : Member

ORDER

Present: Smt. Beena Joseph, Member:

            The above complaint was filed on 10.02.2014 against illegal trade practice and service deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

            The case of the complainant is that on 21.09.13 he had purchased a Hyundai Car from the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.4,92,605/- which having 3 years warranty. As per the Owner’s manual all Hyundai vehicles, the central locking system on the side of the driver door will function when key put in clockwise direction and anti-clockwise it will be unlocked.  But in the car which bought by the petitioner, the central lock system is working otherwise.  The above fact was noted by the complainant within one week of purchase itself, when the key is in ignition position closing the door the central lock is unexpectedly locked and petitioner has to use spare key for function the car.  This was intimated to the dealer, service center, through phone then they told that, it can be rectified at the time of 1^st service.  On 19.11.2013 the vehicle entrusted for 1^st service, even after the complaint was subsisting.  And they informed that, the problem has been reported to the Hyundai Company.  The above stated complaint was repeated several times.  So that the complainant was in trouble by using the vehicle.  This fact has been intimated to the dealer and service center.  The above vehicle was taken to service twice to the opposite party and shown the trouble to them and they opinioned that designing mistake which has to be dealt by the Company.  So the complainant issued mail to the Company but no response from the Company.  The vehicles having central locking system the door will be locked, when door was closed and lock button pressed.  This is correct in complainant’s vehicle also.  But the door closed by using key, it was locked when key turns clockwise.  Owner’s manual also says so.  But the complainant’s vehicles locking system is otherwise.  This Affect security of the passengers to the vehicle.  The lock button is installed parallel to the door open handle, while using the door there is every possibility of locking.  The petitioner has waited for 4 months but there was no reply from them, hence he issued registered notice to the opposite parties.  Now the complainant is afraid of using the above vehicle which affecting the security of the family.  So the petitioner seeks replacement of central locking system along with compensation of Rs.492605/-.  Hence this complaint.

            Notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared.  Both of them filed separate version stating the following facts.

            1^st opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of the Car on 21.09.2013 and they submit that as per owner’s manual turning key clockwise will lock all doors and turning key anticlockwise will unlock all doors of the vehicle.  On 19.05.2013 at the time of 1^st service the complainant pointed out the fact that, in his car turning the key in the door anticlockwise will lock all doors and clockwise it is unlock as opposed to what is given in the owner’s manual at that time itself this opposite party had drawn the attention of the complainant to the statement in 1^st page of the owner’s manual “ All information in the owner’s manual is current at the time of publication.  However Hyundai reserves the right to make changes at any time so that our policy of continual product improvement may be carried out”.   It is also submitted that this method of locking and unlocking is followed universally at present, and this matter was then pointed out to the complainant. The allegation Para II when he close the door keeping the key, inside the door were automatically locked etc. are not true. As per manual this will happened only if the inside lock button is pushed to the lock position before closing the door.  The fact that, this is not a fault but only a matter of convenience was also explained to the complainant.  The complainant was also advised not to leave the ignition key in the ignition when he leaves the car with the lock button pushed he is closing the door.

            Allegation Para II of the complaint that, the vehicle was stranded on the road several times is not known to this opposite party.  The allegation that the problem due to faulty design is not correct and hence denied. Also the allegation that the sensor switch in the lock is probably not working is also not right and hence denied.  This opposite party had received complaint dated 18.01.2014 from the complainant by a registered post is admitted and it is also stated that the customer Relation Manager issued a reply to the same.  The issues raised by the complainant are relating to the design of the systems of the vehicle.  And this opposite party being the authorized dealer and service center of Hyundai is not having competency to change the fundamental designs incorporated by the manufacturer.  It is also to be noted that, the complainant has failed to raise a single allegation against this opposite party regarding the sale or service of the vehicle, let alone prove negligence or deficiency of service in the matter, which falls in the realm of services offered by this opposite party.  So there is no negligence or service deficiency on the part of this opposite party and hence this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

            The 2^nd opposite party has filed version stating the following facts.  They disputes the allegation of the petitioner.  It is submitted that HMIL deals with all its dealers on a principal to principal basis.  The concerned dealer is responsible for any error or misrepresentation at the time of retail sales of the car.  Since it is inter-se the concerned dealer and the customer.  And the HMIL does not have any responsibility.  Being manufacturer HMIL liability is limited to its warranty obligation.  This opposite party submits that all locks are working properly in the subject car and the same was duly explained to the customer. There is no defects much less manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  This opposite party submits that, there was a printing error in i10 owner’s manual that door get locked in clockwise direction and unlocked anti-clockwise direction where as in practical it is vice versa.  Except this printing error the doors and locks with the vehicle are working properly.  It is submitted that corrective steps has already been taken to correct the misprinting in owner’s manual.  However, it is submitted that there is no safety related issue as lock system of car was working properly and as per specification.  It is submitted that all the “i10” model cars are having very same method of door opening and closing as in the complainant’s vehicle.  All those cars will also get unlocked in clockwise direction and locked in anti-clockwise direction.  This was shown to him to clear his apprehension.  It is submitted that standard feature of i10 car that the doors get unlocked in clockwise direction and locked in anticlockwise direction.  Further if the door closed, the door can be locked by locking door knob manually.  In case the knob is closed manually and then they closed the door, the central lock will activated, but the situation will come only when the customer do it intentionally not automatically.  The door that has to be open by another key from outside if no person is inside the car.  It is submitted that the explanation of the printing error in the owner’s manual and the same situation mechanism in all cars manufactured by this opposite party much less all other cars in our market.  The complainant has approached this forum which establishes his greedy and over expectation for the compensation due to some printing error in owner’s manual.

            It is submitted that the representative of opposite parties clarify the apprehension of the complaint regarding the locking system but he is trying to extract undue benefit from the opposite party.  So it is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief sought in the complaint.  Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Points to be considered.

1. Is there any service deficiency or illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party?
2. If yes, what are the reliefs?

In this matter complainant filed affidavit and on the side of complainant PW1, CW1 examined and Ext.A1 to A5 and C1 marked.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice of the vehicle, Ext.A2 is the bill Ext.A3 is the Owner’s manual, Ext. A4 is the email complaint. Ext.A5 is the registered letter issued by the complainant to opposite parties. C1 is the commission Report.  Opposite party examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 marked.  Ext.B1 is the owner’s manual.  1^st page Ext.B2 is the copy of owner’s manual page 8, Ext.B3 is the copy of the letter from Arun Jayen (Customer Care Manager) to the complainant.

      The case of the complainant and version of the opposite parties were detaily stated above hence need not be reiterated here again.  The complainant had purchased a i10 car made by Hyundai Company as on 21.09.2013 from the popular motor world Nallalam.  The above vehicle is registered as KL 11 AS 4077 which having manual central locking system.  There was no dispute regarding sale, price of the vehicle and warranty of the vehicle.  The complainant has no grievance about the functioning of the engine of the vehicle.  The only one dispute between the parties is with respect to the central locking system of the vehicle.  The complainant says that, as per the manual of the vehicle when the ignition key turns clockwise the central locks on, likewise when key turns anti clockwise the door will unlock but the car of the complainant the locking system works otherwise.  This fact also not disputed by the opposite parties.  Rather they admit that it was a mistake while printing the owner’s manual and the locking system is correct as per the international standards.  The complainant specifically deposed that, the above locking system effected the safe and secure traveling of the complainant and his family.  In order to prove the same he had filed application to examine the vehicle by an expert.  And the expert filed a report which marked as Ext.C1 where in it is stated that the central locking system is functioning against to the stipulations of Owner’s manual.  And he also stated that, the door lock button fix parallel to the opening liver, there is every possibility of open the door of vehicle by touching hand.  And this affect the security of the travellers of the vehicle.

      1^st opposite party stated that, the above vehicle was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party and he has no role in the design of the vehicle.  So he is not liable and 2^nd opposite party alone can deal with the design of the vehicle.  And if there is any defect in the design that has to be rectified by 2^nd opposite party the manufacturer of the vehicle.  The second opposite party contented that the above alleged defect is not a manufacturing defect, it being a new generation vehicle they changed it international standard.  And it is only a printing mistake in the owner’s manual.

      From all the above facts, circumstances and documents clearly establish that, the central locking system is against to the stipulation stated in the owner’s manual and the same will affect the security and safety of the travellers.  So it is the bounden duty of the manufacturer of the vehicle to rectify the same.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the central locking system of the vehicle.  The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.4,92,605/- as compensation  from the opposite parties for which he has not adduced any evidence or documents and we are not able to consider the compensation of petitioner as such. In the result the above petition is allowed in part.

      Therefore we direct the opposite parties to replace the central locking system of the vehicle as shown in the owner’s manual within one month, otherwise opposite parties has to pay the cost of the central locking system,  along with 15,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and illegal trade practice and to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise it will carry 9% interest per annuam from the date of default till realization.

Dated this 24^th day of September 2018.

Date of filing: 10.02.2014.

                                             SD/-MEMBER                                    SD/- PRESIDENT            SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.copy of Retail invoice receipt  dtd.14.09.13.

A2. Copy of the bill customer’s Account settlement voucher

A3.Owner’s manual

A4. E-mail complaint dtd.10.01.14

A5.Registered letter issued by the complainant to the opposite parties

     dtd.18.01.2014.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Owner’s manual 1^st Page

B2.Copy of Owner’s manual page 8.

B3. Copy of the letter from Arun Jayen  to the complainant.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.Thomas.C.L( Husband of the complainant)

C1. Commission report

Witness examined for the opposite party

RW1. Wills Augustine, Kuneercal (H), Kizhakkambalam.PO,

            Ernakulam-683562.

CW1. Rijith.N.Jayapalan( Diploma in Automobile Engineering-Inspector)

                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT