DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.385 of 2011
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 02.09.2011
DATE OF ORDER: -19.01.2017
Naveen Kumar aged 25 years son of Sh. Ran Singh, resident of village Kakroli Hatti, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Raghu Hyundai, Authorized Dealer of Hyundai Motors, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 5-6 Floor, Corporate-1 (Baani Building), Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110076.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present:- None for the complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite party no. 1.
Shri K.C. Tanwar, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that he had purchased a vehicle “i-20” of white colour from the OP no. 1 and was manufactured by OP no. 2. It is alleged that the vehicle of the complainant was also got insured with Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company valid w.e.f. 05.01.2011 to 04.01.2012. It is alleged that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 30.06.2011 and it was brought to the workshop of OP no. 1. It is alleged that the OP no. 1 completed the service and the complainant had paid Rs. 12,605/- as per invoice No. B201102265 dated 09.07.2011 and also paid Rs. 3,479.3ps as per invoice no. B201102278 dated 11.07.2011 and took the delivery of his vehicle on 15.07.2011. It is alleged that the vehicle had run just 4/5 kms. from the workshop of OP no. 1, the vehicle got overheated, which was telephonically brought to the notice of the Manager of OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 advised to bring back this vehicle to the workshop. It is alleged that after 5/6 days, the OP no. 1 informed the complainant telephonically that there is defect in the head of the engine and it requires to be changed & that the same is not under warranty, so payment of this replacement would have to be made by the complainant which would be Rs. 76,000/- approximately. It is alleged that he visited the workshop of OP no. 1 and told that on 15.07.2011 the vehicle was handed over to the complainant duly repaired and serviced and just after running of 4/5 kms, there was overheating in the vehicle. It is alleged that the complainant checked the bills issued by the OP no. 1 and found that the OP no. 1 had issued bill for Rs. 6,22,000/- whereas the OP no. 1 had received from the complainant Rs. 90,000/- vide bill no. 5280 dated 06.01.2011 and Rs. 2,30,500/- vide bill no. 5274 dated 06.01.2011 and Rs. 3,20,000/- being the amount of finance from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd., totaling to Rs. 6,40,500/-. It is alleged that the OP no. 1 had received Rs. 28,500/- in excess from the complainant in price of the vehicle of the one hand and on the other hand the OP had also charged Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 834/- from him without any work. It is alleged that his vehicle lying parked with the workshop of the OP no. 1 at Bhiwani from 09.07.2011 to 21.07.2011 and at Hisar agency from 21.07.2011 till date for no fault of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs he has to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the rough estimate of Rs. 76000/- was prepared by the answering respondent for repair of the engine of the vehicle. It is submitted that the engine was seized due to mishandling of the vehicle on the part of complainant and as such damage caused to engine was not covered under the warranty as well as under the insurance policy. It is submitted that the answering respondent did not charged any excess amount with interested as claimed. It is submitted that the complainant never intimated the Manager of workshop with regard to over heating of the vehicle. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant miserably failed to maintain his vehicle as his vehicle met with accidents two times on 05.05.2011 and 30.06.2011 within 7 months of purchase of vehicle. It is submitted that the answering respondent no. 2 warranty terms and conditions, damages or repairs due to accident, fire, tempering or improper repair, negligence of proper maintenance of the vehicle is not covered under the warranty policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-12 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record Annexure 1 to Annexure 5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the Ops.
7. Case called several times since morning. It is now 2.30 p.m. but none appeared on behalf of the complainant. This case is pending for arguments. From the perusal of the zimini orders, we found that since 27.08.2015 the counsel for the complainant is not appearing in this case and the case is being adjourned time and again for arguments. This case has become very old. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 02.09.2011. Today also the complainant or his counsel did not appear for arguments. We proceed to decide this case after the hearing the counsels for the Ops no. 1 & 2 on merits. Written arguments on behalf of the complainant is on the file.
8. Learned counsel for OP No. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. They submitted that the complainant has brought his vehicle for accidental repairs and the OP no. 1 repaired the vehicle of the complainant and a bill of Rs. 42,371/- was issued for the repairs, out of which Rs. 29,766/- paid by the insurance company and remaining amount of Rs. 12,600/- was paid by the complainant. He further submitted that at the request of the complainant service of the vehicle was done by the OP no. 1 and a bill dated 11.07.2011 Annexure C-6 was issued for Rs. 3,479/- which was paid by the complainant. The complainant taken the delivery of the vehicle from the OP no. 1 on 15.07.2011. The complainant again brought the vehicle to the workshop of OP no. 1 and it was found that the engine of the vehicle has been seized due to the overheating by mishandling. It was told by the OP no. 1 to the complainant that this is due to mishandling of the vehicle and it is not covered under the warranty and a rough estimate of Rs. 76,000/- was told to the complainant for the repair of the vehicle. But the complainant took his vehicle from the OP no. 1 without repair. He further submitted that the OP no. 1 has charged Rs. 6,40,500/- from the complainant which includes Rs. 6,22,000/- the cost of vehicle, Rs. 15,500/- for the insurance of the vehicle and Rs. 3,000/- for tempering registration and accessories. He further submitted that the allegation of excess charge by the complainant against OP no. 1 is false and baseless.
9. We have examined the material on record alongwith the pleadings of the parties. The complainant has himself produced the copy of temporary registration as Annexure C-1 and the copy of insurance Annexure C-4 and bills Annexure C-5 to Annexure C-9. The complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of his contention and to rebut the pleadings of the Ops no. 1 & 2. The complainant has not produced any terms and conditions of warranty regarding the seizure of the engine of the car to show that the said fault of the engine is covered under the warranty. Considering the facts of the case and the material on the file, we do not find any substance in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 19.01.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
