DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/37/2023

Date of Institution : 03.04.2023

Date of Decision : 12.04.2024

Gurdeep Singh aged about 54 years son of Sh. Balvir Singh resident of Ward No. 1, Ludhar Patti, Handiaya, Tehsil and District Barnala (Pb).     

                  …Complainant

Versus

1. Raja Hyundai Raja Motors, Mansa Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory;

2. Raja Hyundai Raja Motors, Tinkoni, Barnala Road, Mansa through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory;

3. Hyundai Motors Ltd., Elante Mall, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory.

4. Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd. Unit No. 1/B/5 Floor Midland Financial Tender, Near Bus Stand, G.T. Road Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory.    

              …Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. J.S. Bhangu counsel for complainant.

Opposite party No. 1 & 4 exparte.

Opposite party No. 2 deleted.

Sh. Puneet Pabby counsel for opposite parties No. 3.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

ORDER

 JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.    The complainant namely Gurdeep Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Raja Hyundai Raja Motors and others (herein after referred as opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that complainant was intended to purchase a vehicle for his personal use and as such, the complainant visited opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and they allured the complainant of the best quality and service of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vehicle and on believing the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 assurance, the complainant purchased said vehicle from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and they are authorized dealer of opposite party No. 3. It is alleged that the vehicle was got fully insured from opposite party No. 4 vide policy No. 201120050322800189800000 for period from 10.12.2022 to 9.12.2023 and paid premium amount of Rs. 38,620/-. On 4.2.2023 the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident due to which the vehicle of the complainant got damaged and the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and they have replaced some of the items which got damaged but did not replace the front glass of the vehicle which was also damaged/broken in the said accident. Thereafter, the complainant asked opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for the replacement of said front glass as the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured but the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused for the same in the last week of February, 2023. Further, the complainant asked regarding the non-opening of Air Bags as the said accident occurred at the speed of 80 Kms and at that time the complainant was properly wearing his seat belt. It is further alleged that due to non-opening of Air Bags might have caused serious injury to the complainant or even the complainant can lost his life in the said accident, but with the grace of God he did not received much injuries, but due to the said quality of the vehicle the life of the complainant went in danger, but opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and remained mum. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have failed to replace the front glass of said vehicle of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 2.3.2023 upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 got served a false reply to the said legal notice dated 2.3.2023 which clearly shows the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

i)To replace the front glass of said vehicle of the complainant and to replace the said vehicle with a new one or to replace the defected parts of said vehicle due to which the Air Bags of said vehicle did not open for the reason that the life of the complainant went in danger. 

ii)To pay the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for causing him physical pain, mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as expenses of litigation to the complainant. 

3. In view of the statement of Ld. Counsel for complainant dated 12.4.2023 the opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the arena of opposite parties. 

4. Notices were sent to opposite parties No. 1 & 4 but they failed to appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2.6.2023. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite party No. 3 appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against HMIL as complainant has failed to prove by any document on record that any cause of action arose to him. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed for concealment and misrepresentation of material facts as the complainant has filed the present complaint by suppressing the material facts. The complainant has concealed and misrepresented the fact that “Owner Mannual” was provided to the complainant alongwith the Car and wherein, function of different parts has been described including functioning of Security System and Air Bags- SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) are explained in details. It is further alleged that the complainant has failed to prove his claim of manufacturing defect by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of expert report from any appropriate laboratory recognized by the Central Government or Recognized by a State Government or laboratory or organization established by or under any law as contemplated U/s 38 (2) (C) of CPA, 2019. That HMIL operates with all its dealers including opposite party No. 1 & 2 on “principal to principal” basis and NOT on “Principal To Agent” basis thereby meaning or servicing that error/omission/misrepresentations etc., if any at the retailing or servicing of the car by th dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that as per available record, complainant had reported his vehicle for accidental repair on 7.2.2023 @ 4,566 Kms and any damage due to accident is not covered under HMIL warranty and hence, HMIL cannot be held liable for the same. In the present case, complainant had claimed insurance for repair of the vehicle hence, the same is interse the complainant and the insurance company in which HMIL has no role to play. It is specifically denied that life of the complainant was under any danger due to non-deployment of Air Bags. It is submitted that as per the information received, Surveyor as appointment by opposite party No. 4 had refused to replace Windshield within the insurance claim. This fact was communicated by Raja Motor to the complainant that the replacement of Windshield had been denied by opposite party No. 4 under insurance claim and the same can be replaced on paid basis which was refused by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. Further, deployment of the Air Bags depends on several facts which has been explained in the Owner Manual and there is no single speed at which the air bags will inflate. Generally, air bags are designed to inflate based upon the severity of a collision and its direction. These two factors determine whether the sensors produce an electronic deployment/inflation signal. Air bags deployment depends on a number of factors including vehicle speed, angles of impact and the density and stiffness of the vehicles or objects are not limited to those mentioned above. Further, Air-Bags (SRS) designed to give additional protection that had been provided by Seat-belts. Pictures of the complainant accidental vehicle is also placed on record which clearly shows that the damage was no such that it was necessary for Air-Bags should have been deployed which would have saved complainant from any serious injury. Infact, complainant had himself stated that they did not suffer any serious force which would have necessitated the deployment of Air-Bags. It is specifically denied that complainant had suffered any physical pain, mental agony, financial loss or any inconvenience due to any act or omission on part of HMIL. It is specifically denied that HMIL is liable to replace the front Windshield as the same was damaged due to accident and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in the present complaint. Further, any damage due to accidents are not covered under HMIL warranty policy. It is also denied that there is any defective part due to which Air-Bags did not deploy. It is denied that due to non-deployment of Air-Bags the life of the complainant was in any danger. Further, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

6. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the opposite party No. 3 vide which he denied all the averments as mentioned in the written reply of opposite party No. 3.

7. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of policy Ex.C-3 (containing 3 pages), copy of Estimate Ex.C-4 (containing 6 pages), copy of legal notice Ex.C-5, postal receipts Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9, reply to legal notice Ex.C-10, copy of prescription slip Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. 

8. To rebut the case the opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitin Kumar Gupta working as Assistant Manager Ex.O.P3/1, photographs Ex.O.P3/2 (five pages), copy of relevant extract of owner manual air bag Ex.O.P3/3, copy of Hyundai warranty policy Ex.O.P3/4, copy of invoice summary 25.2.2023 Ex.O.P.3/5, copy of invoice dated 11.4.2023 Ex.O.P3/6, copy of dealership agreement Ex.O.P3/7 and closed the evidence. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through. 

10. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the complainant has contented that complainant was intended to purchase a vehicle for his personal use and complainant visited opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and they allured the complainant of the best quality and service of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vehicle and on believing the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 assurance, the complainant purchased said vehicle from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. It is further contended that the vehicle was got fully insured from opposite party No. 4 vide policy No. 201120050322800189800000 (Ex.C-3) for period from 10.12.2022 to 9.12.2023 and paid premium amount of Rs. 38,620/-. It is contended that on 4.2.2023 the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident due to which the vehicle of the complainant got damaged and the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and they have replaced some of the items which got damaged, but did not replace the front glass of the vehicle which was also damaged/broken in the said accident. The complainant asked opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for the replacement of said front glass as the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured but the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused for the same in the last week of February, 2023. It is further contended that the complainant asked regarding the non-opening of Air Bags as the said accident occurred at the speed of 80 Kms and at that time the complainant was properly wearing his seat belt and due to non-opening of Air Bags might have caused serious injury to the complainant or even the complainant can lost his life in the said accident, but with the grace of God he did not received much injuries and due to the said quality of the vehicle the life of the complainant went in danger, but opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and failed to replace the front glass of said vehicle of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 2.3.2023 (Ex.C-5) upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 got served a false reply to the said legal notice dated 2.3.2023 (Ex.C-10) which clearly shows the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. 

11. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C-1, who has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. Apart from his affidavit, the complainant placed on record copy of RC Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 is the copy of insurance policy from which it shows that the vehicle was insured for the period of own damage from 10.12.2022 to 9.12.2023. The complainant further placed on record copy of repair estimate Ex.C-4 which shows the part description and part amount and the amount of Glass Assy-Windshield shows as Rs. 4,367.86 which was not replaced by the opposite parties as stated by the complainant in complaint. Ex.C-5 is the copy of legal notice dated 2.3.2023 which was sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 are the postal receipts. Ex.C-10 is the reply of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 sent to the complainant against the legal notice dated 2.3.2023. Ex.C-11 is the prescription slip of Noor Multispecialty Hospital & Trauma Centre Thikriwala Chowk, Barnala.   

12. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 3 that the complainant has failed to prove his claim of manufacturing defect by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of expert report from any appropriate laboratory recognized by the Central Government or Recognized by a State Government or laboratory or organization established by or under any law as contemplated U/s 38 (2) (C) of CPA, 2019. It is further argued that as per available record complainant had reported his vehicle for accidental repair on 7.2.2023 @ 4,566 Kms and any damage due to accident is not covered under HMIL (Hyundai Motors India Limited) warranty and hence, HMIL cannot be held liable for the same and in the present case complainant had claimed insurance for repair of the vehicle hence, the same is inter se the complainant and the insurance company in which HMIL has no role to play. It is also argued that as per the information received, Surveyor as appointment by opposite party No. 4 had refused to replace Windshield within the insurance claim and this fact was communicated by Raja Motor to the complainant that the replacement of Windshield had been denied by opposite party No. 4 under insurance claim and the same can be replaced on paid basis which was refused by the complainant. It is further argued that deployment of the Air Bags depends on several facts which has been explained in the Owner Manual and there is no single speed at which the air bags will inflate and generally air bags are designed to inflate based upon the severity of a collision and its direction and these two factors determine whether the sensors produce an electronic deployment/inflation signal, air bags deployment depends on a number of factors including vehicle speed, angles of impact and the density and stiffness of the vehicles or objects are not limited to those mentioned above. It is further argued that pictures of the complainant accidental vehicle is also placed on record which clearly shows that the damage was no such that it was necessary for Air-Bags should have been deployed which would have saved complainant from any serious injury and infact, complainant had himself stated that they did not suffer any serious force which would have necessitated the deployment of Air-Bags.  It is also argued that HMIL is not liable to replace the front Windshield as the same was damaged due to accident and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in the present complaint and any damage due to accidents are not covered under HMIL warranty policy and it is denied that there is any defective part due to which Air-Bags did not deploy, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3.

13. The case of the complainant is that on 4.2.2023 the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident due to which the vehicle of the complainant got damaged but no DDR has been placed on record by the complainant. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and they have replaced some of the items which got damaged, but did not replace the front glass of the vehicle which was also damaged/broken in the said accident and the complainant asked opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for the replacement of said front glass as the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured but the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused for the same in the last week of February, 2023. To rebut the above said plea of the complainant the opposite party No. 3 in the reply on merits in Para 3 B mentioned that any damage due to accident is not covered under Hyundai Motors India Limited warranty and hence the company cannot be held liable for the same. Further, in the present case, complainant had claimed insurance for repair of the vehicle hence, the same is inter se the complainant and the insurance company in which the Hyundai Motors India Limited has no role to play. But in the present case the opposite party No. 4 i.e. insurance company did not come present to contest the present complaint and has preferred to remain exparte. The repair estimate Ex.C-4 shows that there was need to replace the Glass Assy-Windshield. Therefore, we are of the view as the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured at the time of accident so, the complainant is entitled for the replacement of front glass of vehicle in question (Glass Assy-Windshield as shows in Ex.C-4 repair estimate).   

13. However, the plea of the complainant regarding the non-opening of Air Bags as the said accident occurred at the speed of 80 Kms, even at that time the complainant was properly wearing his seat belt and due to non-opening of Air Bags might have caused serious injury to the complainant or even the complainant can lost his life, but the same is not supported by any expert evidence. Further, the complainant in the column of relief stated for the replacement of above said vehicle with a new one or to replace the defected parts of the vehicle due to which the Air Bags did not open. But the complainant has failed to place on record any expert opinion/report of an Engineer/Expert. Complainant has failed to prove his claim by cogent, credible and adequate evidence. So, the above said plea of the complainant is not tenable.  

14. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to replace the front glass (Glass Assy-Windshield) of said vehicle  with new one and the cost of the above said front glass (Glass Assy-Windshield) will be paid by the opposite party No. 4 i.e. insurance company. The opposite party No. 4 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- as consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

15. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

16. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        12th Day of April, 2024

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member