DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 509/2008
Balraj Singh,
H No. 441, Baktawarpur,
New Delhi - 110036. ……Complainant
Versus
1. Rama Hyundai Motors (P) Ltd.
B-5/74, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi – 110029.
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,
A-20, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044.
3. Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.,
C-1, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi,
New Delhi – 110041.
4. Deep Hyundai Motors Pvt. Ltd.
B-72/4, Wazirpur Industrial Area,
New Delhi – 110052. ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 16.08.08 Date of Order : 13.01.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that he had purchased a deluxe car Accent Cardi manufactured by OP-2 from OP-2’s authorized showroom i.e. OP-1 for Rs. 7,05,374/- on 15.6.05. Thereafter, the car started giving problems of various types for which he had got the vehicle repaired/rectified from OP-1 on 25.8.05, 12.2.06, 22.5.06, 4.7.06 and also in the month of May 2007 for the defects detailed in the complaint. However, on 15.12.07, OP-3 (authorized service station) advised the complainant to get the car overhauled for which the complainant agreed at the mileage of 96598 and delivered the car to OP-3. After doing overhauling OP-3 delivered the car to the complainant on 21.5.07 (sic). Thereafter, on 15.2.08, after two months of overhauling at mileage of 103742 kms the car stopped working and the complainant got it repaired from the nearest service center, namely, Nimbus Motors Pvt. Ltd. The car was finally stopped working at the mileage of 111176 km. and on 6.5.08, OP-3 again confirmed that the vehicle needed re-overhauling. According to the complainant, when he had got the vehicle overhauled in the month of December 2007, OP-3 was to provide free overhauling on 6.5.08 and denial of the same tantamount cheating with the complainant. The complainant served upon OP-1 & 2 with the legal notice dated 22.5.08. In reply to the legal notice, the OP-1 denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. According to the complainant, he has suffered the following losses:
“A”
(i) From 12.02.08 to 14.02.06 (3 days) Rs. 6000/-
(Three days for Throttle Body Cleaning)
(ii) From 12.05.06 (Two days when repaired Rs. 4000/-
For low pick up, Brake & clutch)
(iii) From 11.10.06 (Two days when accelerator Rs. 4000/-
was not working)
(iv) Two days from 19.11.06 (Further Throttle Rs. 4000/-
Body cleaning and change of oil filter)
(v) From 15.12.07 to 21.12.07 (7 days) Rs. 14000/-
(vi) Two days from 15.2.08 Rs. 4000/-
(vii) From 06.05.08 to 13.06.08 (37 days) Rs. 74000/-
Total Rs. 1,10,000/-
(B)
(i) Approx. Business loss suffered by the Rs. 1,00,000/-
Complainant.
Total loss suffered by the complainant (A+B) Rs. 2,10,000/-
Therefore, he has prayed that the OPs be directed, jointly and severely, to refund the price of the vehicle , to replace the vehicle with a new defect free vehicle of the same model, to direct OP-1 & 2, jointly and severely, to pay Rs. 1,10,000/- for availing of alternative vehicle due to non-availability of his own vehicle, Rs. 1 Lakh towards compensation for loss of business, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damages towards the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
It is not out of place to mention that OP-4 has been added as party and amended complaint has been filed.
In its written statement, OP-1 has submitted that the car was serviced after 5.12.07 and it had already run upto 96958 kms. as on 5.12.07; that it was found that spurious oil filter and other spurious items have been fitted by the complainant from some local workshop; that the complainant was advised for engine overhauling but he refused the same and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the car is not defective but it is the complainant who has himself violated the policy, norms and guidelines of OP-1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In its written statement, OP-2 has also stated all the similar pleas but the relevant portion of the written statement of OP-2 reads as under:
“It is submitted that on 5.5.2008 when the complainant reported his vehicle at the mileage of 1,11,176 kms. The vehicle was thoroughly examined and was found that the vehicle was not serviced after the engine overhauling at the mileage of 96,598 kms. On 05.12.07. On further examination, it was found that the vehicle was fitted with spurious oil filter, fuel filter and air filter thereby indicating that the vehicle had been attended to local/roadside workshops. The compression of the vehicle was checked. It was found to be 5 kg., 5 kg. & 4 kg. @ 100psi for cylinder no. 1, 2 & 3 respectively which was much low than required. Also, engine oil viscosity was almost zero and there was no coolant in the vehicle. Complainant was duly informed about the use of spurious parts and there being no servicing of the vehicle after its engine’s overhauling in and around December 2007. It was also observed that the complainant kept on using the vehicle despite engine getting overheated due to coolant loss. In the owners Manual it is categorically mentioned what to do if the engine overheats (temperature Gauge indicates overheating). The needle on the coolant Temperature Gauge should stay in a normal range. If it moves across the dial to “H” (Hot), then the engine should be stopped. It is respectfully submitted that the Owner’s Manual under the heading of “Do it Yourself Maintenance” recommends that coolant level should be checked frequently and the level of coolant should be between “LOW” and “FULL” lines mark. It is mentioned that if the level is low, coolant leaks should be inspected and the fluid level should be checked frequently. Further, the Owner’s Manual categorically states that it is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to ensure that the maintenance schedules are adhered to for the smooth functioning of the vehicle, which the complainant failed to do.”
It is stated that the complainant is presently using the car to his entire satisfaction and has covered an extensive mileage of about 1,25,526 kms. from the date of its purchase till 21.10.2008 and, hence, there was no defect in the car.
In its written statement, OP-3 has reiterated the averments made in the written statements of OP-1 & 2.
In its written statement, OP-4 has stated that the complainant had brought the said car to the workshop on 9.6.09 for repair job stated to be “starting trouble” and the vehicle had completed 145324 kms. on 9.6.2009 at the time of arrival in its workshop. The job was completed on 20.6.09 but the complainant emphasized for bill reduction and ultimately the bill was mutually settled at Rs. 80,000/- by allowing substantial deduction in labour charges which was paid by the complainant on 9.11.2009 and the vehicle was delivered to him.
In the rejoinder to the written statement of OP-3, complainant has inter-alia stated that it was, apparently, the OP-3 itself which fitted spurious oil filter with spurious engine oil, diesel filter and air filter when it first overhauled the vehicle in December 2007 and again brought to it admittedly in February 2008 and later tried to put the blame on the complainant. The other averments made in the written statement have been denied.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. Affidavits of Sh. Manish Kr., Dy. Manager of OP-2 and Sh. B.K. Sharma, Manager on behalf of OP-3 have been field in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of OP-2.
We have heard arguments on behalf of OP-1, OP-2 & OP-3. No arguments have been advanced on behalf of complainant and OP-4 despite opportunities given in this behalf. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
In our considered opinion, there is evidence on the record to prove that overhauling of the car had been done by OP-3 and the car had already run 96598 kms on 5.12.07. There is also material on the record that thereafter the complainant did not get the vehicle checked/tested and plied it upto the mileage of 111176 kms upto 5.5.08. There is undisputed evidence on the record to prove that the car was got fitted with spurious oil filter, fuel filter and air filter. According to OP-2, the same had been got done by the complainant from local/roadside workshop. According to the complainant, it is OP-3 who had done so. We do not see any reason to believe the version of OP-3 that the said act had been done by OP-3. Therefore, the entire blame has to be put on the complainant himself.
The vehicle, in question, had purchased by the complainant on 6.6.05. The OPs were/are not supposed to give any life time warranty to the complainant for the vehicle. When the vehicle has already run extensive mileage of about 145324 kms. upto 9.6.09, can it be said with a stretch of imagination and that too successfully that there was/is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is a matter of common knowledge that necessary wear and tear doings overhauling in the vehicle when the same is plied on the road, one cannot put blame on the manufacturers or dealers of the car for each and every wear and tear occurring in the vehicle. Therefore, in our considered judgment, the complaint besides being false and frivolous has been filed with some ulterior motives.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with a special cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on .01.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
19.9.2015
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.14 lakhs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposit i.e.10.09.2013 till the date of realization. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigations. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Complaint stands disposed off accordingly. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
