BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 28 of 2016
Date of Institution : 25.1.2016
Date of Decision : 31.8.2017.
Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of Ekta Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Raja Motor, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its General Manager/ Authorized person.
- Regional Manager, Hyundai Motors, Plot no.178, 178-A, Industrial Area and Business Park, Phase-I, Chandigarh
- Raja Motor Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa (Sub-dealer of the Hyundai-Cars), through its Manager/ Authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 3.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one Xcent CRDi S car from opposite party no.3 on 6.6.2015 and bill in this respect was issued by op no.1 being dealer of Hyundai company. That right from very beginning there was manufacturing defect in the air conditioner of the said car and therefore, the complainant approached the ops/ sub dealer at Dabwali and narrated the said problem and op/ sub dealer asked the complainant to approach the main dealer at Sirsa. Accordingly, he approached op no.1 who checked the car but failed to remove the defect. Thereafter, he approached the call center of the op company and call center gave No.170115015 and he was called at Bathinda. The complainant went to Bathinda and got his car checked but still the defecdt was not removed and the problem in the said car is still as usual as it was right from very beginning. The complainant visited Bathinda two times on 27.6.2015 and 29.6.2015 and thereafter the op company called a mechanic from outside and the said mechanic checked the car but he also failed to remove the defect. That the complainant has spent about Rs.20,000/- while visiting Sirsa to Bathinda again and again but the ops have been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and have caused a lot of harassment and deficiency in service towards him. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 14.7.2015 upon the ops No.1 & 2 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops no.1 and 3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of material facts and estoppal etc. On merits, while denying the contents of the complaint, it is submitted that as a matter of fact on 7.7.2015, the complainant had reported defect in the AC of the car, which was duly got checked up from the service Engineer and the same was removed and AC was set right. On that day, the engineer of the company happened to be at the premises of answering op and that car of complainant was also checked up from him who thoroughly checked the car and found everything in perfect working condition. The complainant while taking the delivery of the car also executed and signed the satisfaction voucher. Since then, there is no defect in the car of the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. OP no.2 in its separate written statement has submitted that it is denied that complainant has been deprived the use of the car. The complainant has always been in possession of his car. The vehicle reported for third free service at Raja Motors on 25.3.2015 at a mileage of 21,109 kms. Therefore, it clearly shows that it has run more than 21000 kms in less than 10 months and by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that complainant has been deprived from using the car. It has also been submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as no cause of action qua answering op has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2, affidavit Ex.R3, copy of job card Ex.R4, copy of satisfaction note Ex.R5 and reply to legal notice Ex.R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased a Xcent CRDi S car from opposite party no.3 for a valid consideration. It is further admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle was under the warranty period when it was found by the complainant that the AC of the vehicle is not working properly and suffered from some defect. It is also further admitted fact between the parties that complainant approached ops No.1 & 3 with a request to make the air conditioner of the vehicle complaint free and in a proper working condition and this fact also find supports from the job cards.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has strongly contended that work about repair was carried out by ops and he had taken his vehicle to Bathinda as per instructions of ops No.1 & 3 and got same repaired there but even then the AC of the vehicle is not working properly and is not cooling the car. Learned counsel for ops though have contended that there may be requisite repair in the AC of the vehicle and it may not fully working and though complainant was assured and complainant has signed the satisfaction voucher at the time of taking of delivery of the vehicle after repair but learned counsel for ops have not denied the fact that vehicle was still under the warranty period when the present complaint was filed. So, once it is proved on record that vehicle is within warranty period, it is the legal obligation of the ops to provide free service regarding repair of the part of the vehicle including the AC and in case any part is found to be irreparable, in that situation, the ops are under obligation to replace the same.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repair in the AC of the vehicle and make the same complaint free and in smooth working condition and in case it is found that same is irreparable even by replacing part of the AC, in that situation ops are directed to replace the AC of the car of the same make and model without any cost and they are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. The ops are jointly and severally directed to comply with this order within two days of production of car to them by the complainant or within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:31.8.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
