BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint No.501/2019.
Date of instt.: 27.08.2019.
Date of Decision: 18.02.2020.
Monika Verma wife of Sh. Vineet Gupta, resident of House No. E-4, University Campus, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Raja Motors Hyundai, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Plot No.1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumpudur, Taluka, Kancheopuram, District Tamil Nadu- 602117 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri JBL Garg, Advocates for opposite party No.1.
Shri A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Verna Car model 1.6 CRDI SX (O) from opposite party no.1 vide invoice dated 3.7.2018 and got registered the same vide registration No. HR24Z-0120. That all the tyres of the said car are company fitted make Hankok having size 195/55R16 (Radial tubeless tyres) and at the time of purchasing the said car, it was told by op no.1 on behalf op no.2 that the aforesaid tyres are of superior quality and it was assured that if any type of defect or problem occurs in any of the tyres, then the said defective tyre will be replaced with new one at the spot. That just after few days of purchase of said car, the complainant realized that there is some manufacturing defect in the tyres of the car as there was bubbling in one of the tyres due to which while driving the car, there was unbalancing and it also caused loss the mileage of the car. On detecting the aforesaid problems, the complainant immediately contacted the op no.1 on its first service on 31.7.2018 and disclosed the above said problems occurred in the tyre of said car and on inspection, it was found by op no.1 that there is manufacturing defect in the tyre. The complainant was assured that said tyre will be replaced with new one. The complainant contacted the op no.1 and Service Manager and General Manager on several occasions and even at the time of every service of the car and requested to replace the said tyre with new one but all of them put off the matter with one pretext or the other and with the lame excuses that op no.1 has already complained to op no.2 company in the matter. It is further averred that complainant has also made several complaints to op no.1 telephonically and through emails but all in vain. The said car is still lying in the house of complainant as unused due to defective tyre because if it will be used, then any mis-happening can occur. That from the very beginning, the complainant is facing lot of problems and she has to spend amount on hiring the car on rent to visit different universities and colleges for conducting viva and to attend sports events etc. and complainant has suffered lot of mental and physical harassment. That on 24.7.2019, complainant got issued a registered legal notice to the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per parts replacement warranty condition, the Audio Video Navigation system, batteries, tyres and tubes and audio systems originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturing companies and not by HMIL, which condition is very much mentioned in the parts replacement warranty and this condition was duly explained and told to the complainant at the time of purchase of the car by her. The answering op no.1 had not given any alleged assurance to the complainant because the tyres fitted with the car were warranted by the manufacturing company and not by the answering op, so the question of giving any alleged assurance to the complainant simply does not arise at all. However, the defective tyre was sent to the manufacturing company, who after its inspection has given its opinion that there is sidewall impact bulge/ damage to the tyre and not a manufacturing defect, therefore, the said defect is out of warranty. However, the complainant should have raised this issue with the manufacturing company of the tyre. It is further submitted that legal notice was duly replied by op no.1 through counsel vide reply dated 19.8.2019, wherein all the above aspects were explained to the complainant, but despite that complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint just to harass and humiliate the answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections that complainant has failed to substantiate any allegations in the complaint against answering op and that complainant is not a consumer qua answering op. The answering op operates with all its dealers on principal to principal basis and errors/ omission and representations, if any at the time of retaining or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. It is further submitted that liability of answering op being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and. That present complaint is bad for non joinder of parties as all the allegations raised in the complaint relate solely to defects, if any in the tyres of the car which is not covered under the warranty policy of the answering op. Any defect in the tyres, therefore, will be purely inter-se the complainant and respective tyre manufacturer and answering op has no role to play in the same. It is submitted that owner’s manual clearly specifies that batteries, audio systems, tyres and tubes originally quipped on Hyundai vehicles are under the direct warranty of the respective manufactures and not by the answering op. It is further submitted that no allegation has been made against the answering op and complaint is purely inter-se the complainant, op no1 and Hankok Tyre India LLP. It is further submitted that as per the service records available with op, the car had covered a mileage of 1171 kms as on 31.7.2019, however, the car shows a covered mileage of 31,232 kms which is not possible if the claim of complainant that car had been lying at the residence is true. It is further submitted that car has been brought to the workshop of op no.1 several times for free and running services. The complainant had visited the workshop of op no.1 on 13.11.2018 for its second service at the mileage of 10,543 kms. Further, on 6.4.2019 and 20.5.2019, the car was reported at the workshop of op no.1 at 22,760 and 28,069 kms respectively and at the time of these services, no issue of the tyre was raised by complainant and the car was services and returned to the full satisfaction of complainant. It is further submitted that as per the information received from op no.1, complainant had already approached the tyre manufacturer who had denied the warranty of the tyre due to sidewall impact bulge/ damage and same is not a manufacturing defect and same was communicated to complainant by op no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. She has also furnished copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and photographs Ex.C12 to Ex.C14. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Varun Panta Assistant Manager Legal & Secretarial as Ex.RW1/A and copies of documents Ex.r1 to Ex.R6. Op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Rahul, Accountant as Ex.RW2/A and copies of emails Ex.R7 to Ex.R9.
7. It is proved on record that on 3.7.2018 complainant had purchased a Verna car from op no.1 which was manufactured by op no.2 on payment of sale consideration. It is further proved on record that all the tyres of the car were of Hankok company size 195/55R16 radial tubeless tyres. As per allegations of complainant, it was assured by op no.1 at the time of sale of the car that the aforesaid tyres of the Hankok company are of the superior quality and it was assured that if any type of defect or problem occurs in any of the tyres, then the said defective tyre will be replaced with new one at the spot. There are specific allegations of the complainant in the complaint that just after few days of the purchase of the car, the complainant realized that there is some manufacturing defect in the tyres of the car as there are bubles in one of the said tyre due to which while driving the car, it is bumbling and unbalancing and it also caused loss to the mileage of the car.
8. On the other hand, op no.1 has not denied that there was no defect in the tyres and it also stands proved from documents Ex.R7 to Ex.R9 that op no.1 forwarded complaint to the concerned authority to evaluate defect in the tyres. The email Ex.R8 dated 12.8.2018 reveals that tyre was received by Raja Motors from complainant with mileage 12105 Kms which was sent for examination and it was reported vide email Ex.R7 that “based on your photographs would like to state that it’s tyre sidewall impact Bulge/ damage. It’s non manufacturing defect, hence we are not in position to consider this under Hankook warranty policy.” There is no dispute that tyre of the car of complainant was not defective rather it proves from evidence on record that tyre was defective as a result of which complainant had handed over same to op no.1 for replacement of the same and complainant had been approaching time and again to the ops. Though during course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 has strongly contended that it is Hankook company which manufacturers the tyres is liable to give warrantee of the tyre but this contention of learned counsel for op no.2 appears to be devoid of merit because vehicle is duly assembled by op no.2 after collecting parts of the vehicle including tyres from different manufacturers and thereafter same is marketed and sold to the customers like complainant through dealer op no.1. So op no.2 cannot take this plea rather it is legal obligation of the ops to provide after sales services to the customers like complainant as vehicle is within warranty period. It is proved fact on record that vehicle was purchased by complainant on 3.7.2018 and complaint qua defect in the tyre was made on 12.8.2018. So, it appears that vehicle as well as tyre was within warrantee period and non replacement of the defective tyre with new one clearly amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops towards the complainant.
9. In view of above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the tyre of the car of complainant with new one of same make and model after receiving old tyre from complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:18.02.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
