Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

53/2014

G.Bharathi Kannan,S/o.Ganesha pandian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep by its General Manager& 4 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.J.Raujam Devi

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  18.03.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.03.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 22^nd   DAY OF MARCH 2017

 

C.C.NO.53/2014

 

Mr.G.Bharathi Kannan,

S/o.Ganesha Pandiyan,

No5, Sudarshan Annnagar Extension,

Kaappa Road,

Teachers Colony,

Kolathur, Chennai – 600 082.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Hyundai Motor India (Ltd),

Rep by its General Manager,

A-30, Mohan Co-operative,

Industrial Area Phase-1,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi – 110 044.

 

2.Hyundai Motors India (Ltd),

Rep by its General Manager – Production,

Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Estate,

Irrungattukottai, Sriperimbudur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District – 602 105.

 

3. Hyundai Motors India (Ltd),

Rep by its General Manager – Marketing,

Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Estate,

Irrungattukottai, Sriperuimbudur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District – 602 105.

4. Kun Hyundai,

Rep by its Showroom Manager,

C-48, IInd Avenue,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

 

5. Kun Hyundai,

Rep by its General Manager,

D-5, Ambathur Industrial Estate,

Chennai – 600 058.

 

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 20.03.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.J.Ranjani Devi

 

Counsel for 1^st to 3^rd  Opposite Parties    : M/s.IPN Associates

 

Counsel for 4^th  & 5^th  Opposite Parties    : S.V.Udayakumar, D.Johnsamuvel

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  directing the Opposite Parties to replace the new vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle of Rs. 10,75,000/-, for travel expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-  and also compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Hyundai  Motor  Car for his personal  use from the  4^th  Opposite Party/dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.10,75,000/- and from the purchase of day one he is using the car. From the date of purchase till date the above said vehicle suffers with series defects and the front bumper of the car broken on 22.06.2011 and immediately the same was given for service to the 5^th Opposite Party. The same problem arose on 16.07.2011 and on 07.10.2011 and the 5^th Opposite Party changed the pumper at the cost of the Complainant. Though the above repair was done during the warranty period the Complainant was made to pay the cost. The Complainant questioned the 4^th Opposite Party for selling the defective vehicle. He replied that the same is a manufacturing defect. The warranty given for the vehicle 24 months or forty thousand kilometers whichever is earlier? Regarding for replacing the parts, the warranty period is for  6 months or ten thousand kilometers whichever is earlier.

          2. The Complainant informed the 4^th & 5^th Opposite Parties in the first week of June 2013 that he was put to great risk in the National high way. During 2013 he was driving Chennai- Trichy highway and another time while he was driving from Chennai – Bangalore and on 3^rd occasion from Chennai to Madurai the gear box jammed. The Complainant was engaged to tow the vehicle to the service centre for various repairs and replacement. Finally, the Complainant left with no other option, issued legal notice dated on 25.07.2013 and the Opposite Parties though received the same they have replied and does not come forward to settle the claim. The vehicle is stationed with the 5^th Opposite Party and even after 4 months elapsed, the Opposite Parties never settled the issue. Hence the acts of the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 amounts to Deficiency in Service and also unfair trade practice.

          3. The 4^th Opposite Party replied that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect and the same to be rectified by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant hired tourist car for his travel and for his family members and thereby caused mental agony to him. Since the Opposite Parties have not redressed the grievances of the Complainant, the Complainant filed this Complaint for  replacing vehicle or to repay the cost of the vehicle and travel expenses and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  1^st TO 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has alleged against the Opposite Party No.4 and 5 for their negligent and lack of service, but nowhere substantiated his claim of manufacturing defect. The answering Opposite Party deals with all its Dealers on “Principal to Principal” basis. For any act, omission, representation, negligent/deficiency in service, etc. on part of Dealers, the Answering Opposite Party/HMIL cannot be made liable.  Consumable items such as oil/fluid changes, filter replenishment, wheel balancing, wheel alignment, tyre rotation,  minor adjustment, engine tuning, replacement of parts as a result of normal wear & tear such as spark plugs, belts, brake pads, clutch disc, wiper blades, bulbs, fuses etc. is not covered under warranty. It is further submitted that damages or failure resulting from negligence of proper maintenance as required owner’s manual or accident will not be covered under warranty. Under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Complaint is required to be filed within a period of two years.  The Complainant purchased the car on 01.06.2011 and filed the Complaint in February 2014 much after the limitation period of two years. The present Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is settled principle of law that the limitation shall be reckoned from the date of purchase. The Complainant has concealed the material fact that vehicle met with an accident and was reported on 22.06.2011 at the mileage of 1533 kms for accidental repair and accidental repair work was carried out under insurance. Further as per available records, it is submitted that the vehicle was reported frequently (Five times – on 22.06.2011, 28.01.2012, 28.02.2012, 08.05.2012, 19.03.2014) for accidental repairs. Accidents adversely affect the performance of vehicle and also expose the driving habit of the owner of vehicle. Further accidental repair and damage to vehicle caused due to accident are not covered under warranty. With regard to the allegation of manufacturing defect, the answering Opposite Party respectfully submits that reporting of vehicle repeatedly is no ground to hold that vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect. It is further respectful submitted that as per available reporting history, the vehicle has been used extensively  and was lastly reported on 26.04.2014 at the mileage of 36144 kms. Had there been any defect much less manufacturing defect, the Complainant would not have been able to use the vehicle for such a long distance. The Complainant has not approached the Forums with clean hands and this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  4^th  & 5^th  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          It is true that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle from the 4^th Opposite Party. With regard to averments that the front bumper  had been frequently damaged due to external impact or by accident and an accident repairs cannot be  claimed under warranty, it has to be claimed only by insurance. At no point of time the   Opposite Parties 4&5 had claimed any amount for the accessories that were covered under warranty and this Complainant had not specified which part had been changed or the specific cost had been claimed by this Opposite Parties. On inspection of the said vehicle, it was found that the manual operation of the gear had been erroneously performed and this was due to the dysfunctions of the clutch and the clutch can’t be covered under warranty, because it comes under wear and tear item and furthermore, it had been assessed that the erratic handling would have opted for the jam of the gear box and no where this Opposite Parties had agreed to pay the tow charges as averred in the Complainant.  The Complainant having entrusted the vehicle with these Opposite Parties had again insisted them to resolve his grievance and had also assured to pay for it and now it has been brought to the knowledge of this Opposite Parties that the Complainant had preferred this Complaint before this Hon’ble Forum on 18.03.2014 and had taken delivery of the said vehicle on 19.03.2014.  It is pertinent to mention here at this juncture that this Complainant had each and every time after the service of the said vehicle had taken delivery of the said vehicle by endorsing his utmost satisfaction in the job card. The Complainant had preferred this Complaint with ulterior motive which is clearly emancipate by the Complainant’s act of preferring this Complaint on 18.03.2014 and taking delivery of the said vehicle on 19.03.2014. Even today these Opposite Parties are prepared to resolve the grievances of the Complainant if any in an amenable means. Hence this Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

 

7. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant purchased Hyundai Motor Car on 01.06.2011 bearing Registration No.TN22CZ7777 from the 4^th Opposite Party/dealer and the said vehicle was manufactured by the   Opposite Parties 1&2 and the 3^rd Opposite Party is doing marketing and the 5^th Opposite Party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party and Ex.A1 is the Registration Certificate of the Complainant car.

8. The Complainant alleged deficiency against the Opposite Parties are that after purchase of the car from the  date of purchase till date, the vehicle had several series defects and front pumper of the car broken on 22.06.2011, 16.07.2011 and 07.10.11 and the Complainant as directed by the 4^th Opposite Party entrusted the vehicle to the 5^th Opposite Party and the 5^th Opposite Party changed the pumper at the cost of the Complainant all the times, even though warranty is available and during June 2013 while the Complainant was driving the vehicle from Chennai to Trichy highway and another time while he was driving to Chennai to Bangalore on again  third occasion Chennai to Madurai the gear box was jammed  and the Complainant has to engage to tow the vehicle to the service centre for various repairs and therefore the vehicle is having manufacturing  defects and therefore the Complainant prays to replace the defective vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle with compensation.

          9. The Opposite Party contended in the written version that  frequent changing of the pumper of the car shows that only during the accident the bumper should have been broken and further there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the Complainant had not used the vehicle as per the instructions given in the manual and only the parts which are not covered under the warranty only was billed to the Complainant and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed deficiency in service and prays dismiss the Complaint with cost.

          10. The front bumper of the Complainant car was broken on 26.02.2011, 16.11.2011&17.10.2011 on three occasions and the same was replaced by the 5^th Opposite Party at the cost of the Complainant. The front bumper car broken cannot occur due to defect in the product, that too frequently. The bumper broken only establishes that the car must have met with an accident and only that time the bumper should have broken as contended by the Opposite Parties. Ex.A2 series service receipts issued by the 5^th Opposite Party for servicing the Complainant vehicle.  The said receipts shows free service was done, reverse sensor was checked and for changing oil and filters was billed and for changing front pumper also was billed as per evidence at page 9 Ex.A2. In the very same page the work tinkering & Painting had done as per insurance. This tinkering & painting was done only shows that as contended by the Opposite Party that the vehicle must have met with an accident. Further wiper not working and wiper rubber was replaced. Further Ex.A2 service receipts disclosed that gear not engaging, gear box assy-steering work also attended by them. Hence all the works have been done by the service centre after billing. Further the Complainant has not established that what are the items can be replaced without cost during the warranty period.

          11. The Complainant pleaded in the Complainant that even after 4 months of the left the vehicle with the 5^th Opposite Party, the Opposite Party has not settled the issue. However during arguments the Complainant admitted that the vehicle is with him.  The 4^th and 5^th Opposite Party in their written version specifically pleaded that after filing of the Complaint on 18.03.2014, the Complainant had taken delivery of the said vehicle on 19.03.2014. After taken delivery on 19.03.2014 the vehicle is still having defect has not been supported by the documents of the Complainant.  The Complainant case was that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect to prove the same there is no expert evidence adduced that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. The above referred services done by the 5th Opposite Party do not constitute or leads any inference that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect.

          12. The Complainant after taking  delivery of the vehicle on 19.03.2015 from the service centre, he had not proved that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and further after that there is no allegation that the service done by the 5^th Opposite Party is negligent service and those circumstances we conclude  that the Complainant has not proved his case that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and the Opposite Parties have committed any deficiency in the vehicle and hence it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 have not committed any Deficiency in Service.    

13. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed deficiency in Service , the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.      

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of March, 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated  06.06.2011                  Copy of the R.C.stands in the name of the

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 22.06.2011                   Copy of the series of service receipt issued by the

To 19.07.2013                             Opposite Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 29.05.2012                   Copy of the Insurance policy stands in the name of

                                                    the Complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 25.07.2013                   Copy of the legal notice issued by the Complainant

                                                    counsel with Acknowledgement Card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

                                                ……. NIL ……..

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT