BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 80/2015 Filed on 26.02.2015

ORDER DATED: 09.09.2016

Complainant:

Syam Raj. N. K, Narayanamangalam, Anayara P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 029.

                                       (Party in person)

Opposite party:

          Pothens Hyundai, Maruthoor, Mannanthala, Thiruvananthapuram-695 028.

                        (By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)

This C.C having been heard on 11.07.2016, the Forum on 09.09.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

Complainant purchased a Santro GLS (LPG) car from the opposite party, wherein the battery was of Amaron made.  Since it showed several complaints, as per the warranty conditions he intimated the Amaron Company and requested for a replacement.  The Amaron Company requested him the warranty card for the same.  But the opposite party has failed to deliver the same at the time of delivering the car.  So he approached them again, but they were reluctant to issue the same, and after much persuasion, they replaced the battery with an old one.  So he was deprived of getting a new one by the act of the opposite party.  Now the replaced one is also defective. 

Opposite party filed version contending as follows:  The complainant has been delivered a brand new car with a new Amaron battery.  When a brand new car is delivered no separate warranty is issued to the purchasers in respect of battery, tyre etc. which are manufactured by separate companies.  In case the battery is found defective the same will be rectified or replaced as the circumstances warrants.  The complainant also has been given another battery when he reported the original battery is defective.  No separate warranty for the replaced battery can be given as stated above.  But the warranty against the battery is subsisting for the remaining period of the warranty from the date of purchase of the car.  The maximum leniency towards the complainant can be extended by giving a letter of undertaking by the opposite party that the warranty of the complainant’s car battery is available from the date of purchase of the car till the original period of warranty expires.  There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and hence this opposite party is not liable to the complainant to any extent whatsoever.  The complainants are not entitled to be compensated by the opposite party for any of their act to any extent. 

Points:

1. Whether the deficiency in service of the opposite party is proved?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- Perused the documents and heard the complainant.  Complainant filed affidavit along with 8 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P8.  In Ext. P5, it is clearly pointed out that the warranty for batteries, audio systems, tyres and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by HMIL.  So it is very clear that, for battery warranty, the maker is liable, that is Amaron Company.  For fulfilling the warranty, warranty card is inevitable.  In Ext. P7 New Vehicle Release Order, opposite party clearly states that they have issued battery warranty card.  But in their version they stated that there is no separate warranty card.  While we are hearing the complaint, opposite party on several occasions promised to deliver the warranty card but they failed to fulfill the same. The callous and inefficient attitude of the opposite party is clearly proved, for which the complainant is to be compensated.  At the time of filing the affidavit, complainant states that he had purchased a new battery for his vehicle and its bill is produced as Ext. P8.  So the opposite party is liable to refund that amount to the complainant which will come to Rs. 3,350/- along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for his mental agony. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite party is directed to pay the complainant Rs. 3,350/- along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% till the date of realization from the date of default.  No order on cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 9^th day of September 2016.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER 

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 80/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of complaint dated 11.02.2015

P2     - Copy of customer account settlement voucher dated 01.03.2014

P3     - Copy of owner’s manual & service booklet

P4     - Copy of vehicle record sheet

P5     - Copy of Hyundai warranty policy

P6     - Copy of R.C Book

P7     - New Vehicle Release Order dated 28.02.2014

P8     - Copy of retail invoice dated 30.01.2016

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb