BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.    

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 92 of 2016.                                                                          

                                                             Date of Institution         :    25.3.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    07.06.2017

Parveen Singla, aged about 60 years son of Shri Sant Lal, resident of House No.80, Sant Ram Advocate Street, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa (Punjab).

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Raja Motors, Hyundai Show Room, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge.

2. Hyundai Motors India Limited, Plot No.1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluka, Kancheopuram, District (TN)-602 117, through its Managing Director.

                                                              ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SMT. RAJNI GOYAT…………………PRESIDING MEMBER

                 SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ………..……MEMBER.       

Present:       Sh. Manav Goyal,  Advocate for the complainant.

     Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

    Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased one i20 sport Model car from opposite party no.1 on 28.3.2014 with two years guarantee. After purchase of said car, the complainant is suffering serious problem due to serious manufacturing defect in the above said vehicle. The air conditioner of the vehicle is not working properly and it shut down and on of its own. The meter hand brake light, ABC light and mal functioning light are also not working properly as shut down and on of its own. Even meter temperature and RPM meter are also not in working position. It is further averred that complainant is facing above said serious problem of the said car since September, 2015 and has written so many letters to the company narrating the defects of the car and also it was got checked from op no.1 as well as from the showroom situated at Bathinda but all in vain and these defects could not be removed inspite of best efforts of the complainant, rather he has been given assurance for its repair from time to time. It has been reported by the engineers of the ops that there is a serious manufacturing defect in the vehicle and it could not be removed rather the vehicle is to be replaced with new one. It is further averred that vehicle is still under guarantee as per assurance of the company. There is no other alternative except its replacement because the complainant has suffered huge recurring losses, harassment and humiliation to visit the company at Sirsa as well as Bathinda time and again but all in vain. The vehicle is still lying with the company and has not been repaired till date. The complainant approached and requested the ops to replace the vehicle with new one but to no effect and the ops have been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and the ops are not ready to replace the vehicle without any rhyme or reason. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; suppression of material facts; estoppal and that no consumer dispute is made out between the complainant and ops and there is no deficiency on the part of ops. On merits, while admitting the fact of sale of car to complainant, it has been submitted that the warranty on the car is issued/given by the manufacturing company as per its warranty policy, terms of which are fully explained on the warranty card. The complainant has averred false and baseless facts. As a matter of fact on 18.4.2014, the complainant took free service of his car and then on 2.8.2014 he brought the car in an accidental condition at the workshop of op no.1. The op no.1 repaired the said accidental car and complainant availed the insurance claim in respect of damages suffered by the car in the accident. Thereafter, on 3.9.2014, the complainant availed the free service of his car. The complainant further availed services of his car on 1.4.2015 and 17.9.2015 and thereafter, he never came to the op no.1 for service of his car nor ever reported any defect in the car. There was no manufacturing defect in the car of the complainant. If any alleged defect appeared in the car, the same appeared due to mishandling of the car by complainant himself. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 in its separate reply while taking certain preliminary objections has asserted that it is specifically denied that answering op provides guarantee on the vehicle in all respects. As per the warranty terms and conditions of the answering op, two years of warranty is offered from the date of delivery of the car to the purchaser with some exceptions mentioned in the warranty card. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 29.3.2014 in a perfectly fine and running condition and the said defects in the vehicle allegedly only cropped up after two major accidents of the car. Further the complainant has also not produced any material evidence or expert report in support of his contentions. It is further asserted that even the warranty policy of answering op which offers two year warranty from the date of delivery of vehicle to the first purchase does not under any circumstances contemplate neither replacement of the vehicle nor refund of the same. As per the information available to the answering op, the vehicle was reported for accidental repairs works at Raja Motors and Berk Auto LLP on 2.8.2014, 30.10.2014 and 12.9.2016 which clearly proves that the complainant is negligent in driving. It is further asserted that accidents adversely affect the performance of the car and are cause of the negligence on the part of the consumer i.e. the complainant, therefore, the answering op cannot be made liable for the same. The accidental repairs and the damage due to negligence of owner are not covered under warranty and cannot be said to be a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Further as per the information available to the answering op, the complainant reported the concerns with regard to the vehicle to op no.1 on 22.9.2016 but the complainant did not give consent to carry out the repair work due to the reason that he had taken appointment with the Doctor and same is also mentioned in the RO dated 22.9.2016 and further chose to approach this Forum seeking compensation against the ops which clearly depicts the intention of the complainant to take unlawful gains at the expenses of the answering op. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

4.                In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.P1 and copies of documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P9. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, affidavit Ex.RW2/A and copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                From the documents available on file, it is evident that car in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.3.2014 from opposite party no.1 and same was delivered to him on the next day i.e. on 29.3.2014. The first free service of the car was got conducted by the complainant on 18.4.2014 at 1160 Kms. and at that time no complaint of any type in the car was reported by the complainant to the opposite party no.1 as is evident from Ex.R6. Then the car in question was brought to the opposite party no.1 for accidental repair on 2.8.2014 when it covered 8264 Kms. and at that time its rear side was damaged as reported by the complainant himself which is evident from document Ex.R5. The vehicle was repaired in the workshop of op no.1 at that time. Then the second free service of the car in question was done on 3.9.2014 at 9913 Kms. and at that time complainant only demanded replacement of engine oil and oil filter and replacement of air filter only as is evident from Ex.R7 and not narrated any problem of air conditioner and lights etc. as alleged by the complainant. Then on 1.4.2015 at 20675 Kms, the complainant sought meter light check and meter check as is evident from Ex.R8 and similarly on 17.9.2015, the complainant again sought met check ABS light show as is evident from document Ex.R9. However, there is nothing on file to suggest that the defects narrated by the complainant occurred due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant has not produced any mechanical/ expert report on file to prove that car in question is having manufacturing defect. As mentioned above the vehicle has met with an accident as it was brought to op no.1 for accidental repair on 2.8.2014 and accident is not covered in the warranty. From Ex.R1, it is evident that complainant reported defects in the car on 22.9.2015 that speedometer not working, speedometer needle flickering, odometer not working and that ABS light always on but then it is also mentioned in this document that job not done on customer request, customer in hurry because customer already taken appointment to doctor. The vehicle had run 29101 Kms. as on 22.9.2015 as is evident from Ex.R1. A satisfaction note dated 22.9.2015, (copy Ex.R2) regarding service/ repair of the car has also been given to op no.1 on behalf of complainant. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the car, it would not have covered such distance. The op no.1 has averred that the complainant has also availed the insurance claim in respect of damages suffered in the accident and the complainant has not denied this fact. In these circumstances, no case for replacement or refund of the price of the car in question is made out. At the most, the opposite parties can be directed to thorough check of the car in question, to do the service etc. without any charges.     

7.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. However, we direct the opposite parties to thorough check the car in question and replace the defective wires/ light indicators, if any free of costs. The ops are further directed to do service, washing and cleaning of the car without any charges to the complainant. The complainant is directed to take the vehicle in question to the opposite parties within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter the opposite parties jointly and severally will do the needful as mentioned above within a further period of 15 days. The present complaint stands disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                           Presiding Member,

Dated:7.6.2017.                    Member.                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                       Redressal Forum, Sirsa.