Haryana

Karnal

CC/163/2021

Gurbachan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Karnal Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

Kanav Deep Singh

28 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 163 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.16.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:28.07.2023

 

Gurbachan Singh son of Shri Gurdeep Singh, resident of village Gamur Kheri, District Kurukshetera, Haryana. Aadhar no.8432 6687 4548.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Rahul Karnal Hyundai near Tau Devi Lal Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Authorized Signatory/person.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Kanavdeep Singh, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Rahul Bali, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Vineet kaushik, member)

ORDER:

                  

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant purchased a car i.e. Hyundai Verna SX (o) CRDI White bearing registration no.HR07Z-1879 from the OP on 27.11.2017 for which complainant has paid Rs.14,32,000/- to the OP including registration charges, insurance and warranty. At the time of purchase representative/sales man of OP has assured the complainant that abovesaid amount include five year warranty of the abovesaid vehicle and it was also assured that if any problem regarding engine or any other mechanical failure will occur to the abovesaid vehicle in the next five years that will be taken care under the warranty of the abovesaid vehicle.

2.             In the second week of March, 2020, complainant noticed that the vehicle is releasing more smoke and blow then usual and smoke was also very dark in colour. Complainant immediately approached to the OP and OP told the complainant to come after a week. The complainant was having a family wedding on 18.03.2020, because of which, complainant could not take the vehicle to the OP after which a complete lockdown regarding Covid-19 was levied by the Central Government. Complainant has a phone call with the representative from the OP where he has told the complainant that they will call the complainant whenever the agency will be operational. It was also advised to the complainant that in the meantime, complainant should try to use the abovesaid vehicle as less as possible. On the advice of the representative of the OP, complainant parked the said vehicle in their house and has started using other car for their day to day purpose. When Covid-19 Limitation were removed by the Government, the complainant was in Punjab and stayed there for few months for his own personal reasons and when complainant asked the service advisor of the OP he was told to bring the abovesaid vehicle at the time of service whenever its due. On 08.03.2021, complainant took the abovesaid vehicle to the OP regarding complaint of extra smoke and blow releasing out of the vehicle and for complete service. Service advisor of OP after the inspection and after doing service of the abovesaid vehicle has told complainant that there is a problem in the engine of the abovesaid vehicle and to rectify the problem, the engine of the abovesaid vehicle will be opened. When complainant asked the OP that it is a new vehicle which have only done mileage of 22841 kilometer and asked why such problem have occurred, the service advisor has told the complainant not to worry as it will be considered in warranty and no additional charges will be levied on complainant.

3.             After waiting for while that service advisor have come up to complainant by saying that the abovesaid vehicle is not in warranty and told him that complainant has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the repair of the abovesaid vehicle. Complainant told him regarding the five year warranty plan, he was assured at the time of purchase by the OP but service advisor of OP has completely denied any warranty plan and in this way OP has completely fooled the complainant in order to grab hefty amount from him in the shape of repair charges. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

4.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that both the parties are legally bound by the conditions of the same. In the present complaint, complainant has alleged that some representative/sales man has orally assured that the amount paid at the time of purchase of the vehicle includes five years warranty. There is no mention of any name of representative/sales man of the OP who has allegedly assured the complainant with regard to five years warranty. It is further pleaded that during Covid-19, OP was working as per Government norms. Complainant could travel to Punjab but he could not bring his vehicle to work station/workshop of the OP. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was inspected by technical person and after complete inspection he was of the clear view that the fault is not due to fault of OP, rather the same is due to negligent driving or impact caused by act of owner/complainant only. Moreover, the claim is already time barred and thus this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of pollution certificate Ex.C2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, copy of receipt service voucher Ex.C4, copy of invoice summary Ex.C5, copy of repair order summary Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 15.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Romi, HR Manager of OP Ex.OPW1/A, authority letter Ex.OP1, copy of Hyundai warranty policy Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 08.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a car Hyundai Verna SX (o) CRDI white bearing registration no.HR07Z-1879 from the OP on 27.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.14,32,000/- alongwith five year warranty. Complainant noticed dark smoke from the vehicle and approached to the OP. The service advisor of OP told that the engine of the abovesaid vehicle will be opened. When complainant asked the OP that it is a new vehicle which have only done mileage of 22841 kilometer and asked why such problem have occurred, the service advisor told the complainant not to worry as it will be considered in warranty and as no additional charges will be levied on complainant. After waiting for while that service advisor have come up to complainant by saying that the abovesaid vehicle is not in warranty and told him that complainant has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the repair of the abovesaid vehicle. Complainant told him regarding the five year warranty plan, he was assured at the time of purchase by the OP but service advisor of OP has completely denied any warranty plan and in this way OP has completely fooled the complainant in order to grab heavy amount from him in the shape of repair charges. He further argued that the complainant due to the act of the OP, the complainant suffered mental torture. He further argued that during the pendency of the complainant, when the complainant smelled some doubt in the services of the OP, he approached to another authorized service centre of the OP for service and another problem in the vehicle. He discussed about the engine problem to the official of the authorized service centre of the OP, after checking, they told the complainant that there is nothing in the engine, rather the smoke was due to use of substandard engine oil in the car. He further stated that there is no problem in the engine of the car of the complainant. In this way, the OP committed deficiency in service and gave mental harassment to the complainant and prayed for imposing heavy penalty/compensation upon the OP.

10.           Learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that complainant has alleged that some representative/sales man has orally assured that the amount paid at the time of purchase of the vehicle includes five years warranty but the complainant has not named of any representative/ sales man of the OP who has allegedly assured the complainant with regard to five years warranty. He further argued that during Covid-19, OP was working as per Government norms. Complainant could travel to Punjab but he could not bring his vehicle to work station/workshop of the OP. He further argued that the vehicle was inspected by technical person and after complete inspection he was of the clear view that the fault is not due to fault of OP, rather the same is due to negligent driving or impact caused by act of complainant only. Moreover, the claim is already time barred and thus this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from the OP for an amount of Rs.14,32,000/-. It is also admitted fact that the complainant approached the OP due to more smoke in his car and after checking the vehicle, the engineer of the OP told that there is problem in the engine and same is required to be opened and it takes Rs.1,00,000/- as costs.

12.           Complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OP in the year 2017 and after some time, the vehicle in question started more smoke. During the warranty period, the complainant approached to the OP many times and lastly in the month of March, 2020, but the official of the OP assured the complainant that it is a minor problem and same will be removed in a free time and asked him to come for some other day. Due to COVID-19, the complainant could not approach to the OP and the complainant after normalization of the condition of COVID-19, approached the OP in the month of March, 2021. On checking the vehicle in question, the OP told that the engine of the car has to be opened. The complainant asked the OP to remove the defect under warranty but the OP flatly refused to remove the defect under warranty.

13.           During pendency of the complaint, the complainant got checked his vehicle from other authorized dealer namely Smta Motors Private Limited, Karnal and after thorough check, the authorized dealer told that there is no problem in the engine of the vehicle, rather the smoke was due to use of substandard engine oil by the OP at the time of routine service. In order to prove this version, the complainant has placed on record report of Samta Motors Private Limited Ex.C6, wherein they observed that “Engine is OK Condition”.

14.           It has been proved from the above said record that the engine of the vehicle in question was not having any defect but despite that, the OP told the complainant that the engine is required to be opened and it takes Rs.1,00,000/- as costs. The OP has compelled the complainant to deposit the said amount, knowing that the complainant is an old aged person and is a layman, just in order to grab money from the complainant. Thus, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           The complainant has sought relief for repair of the vehicle in question but the vehicle in question is having no defect, it has been proved on record, thus the question for repairing of the vehicle does not arise at all.  However, the OP has dragged the complainant in an unwanted litigation. To avoid such type of practice by the OP, it would be justified if the OP be burdened with heavy compensation.

16.           Hence, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac only) to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount not paid within stipulated period then interest @ 9% per annum shall be charged on the awarded amount from the date of announcement of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.07.2023

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

        (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

              Member                        Member