1.      Heard Mr. Rajnish Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner.

2.      This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, dated 18.02.2021, passed in First Appeal No. 367 of 2015 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puri, dated 30.05.2015, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 275 of 2013), by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties No.1,2 & 4 to repair the vehicle as per the repair estimate dated 3.8.2013 and dated 16.11.2014 of Aditya Car Care Pvt. Ltd, opposite party No.4 free of cost and deliver the vehicle in perfect running condition within two months and pay compensatory interest @12% per annum on the cost of the vehicle of Rs.10,08,294/- from 3.8.2013 till it is repaired.  If opposite parties failed to comply with the directions above within stipulated period, then the interest was enhanced @18% per annum and cost of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. The Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.  

3.      Ruparanjan Das (Respondent No.1) filed CC No.275 of 2013 for directing opposite parties No.1 to 4 for payment of Rs.13 lakhs as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

4.      It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased new Verna Car bearing Engine No.D4FBCU098450 and Registration No.OR-05-AW-774 on 25.4.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,8,294/-from Hyundai Motors India Private Limited, opposite party No.1.  After using few days some mechanical trouble occurred for which a complaint was made to the opposite party No.1 although the car was attended, but the defect was not removed fully.  On 24.07.2013 Service Inspector of opposite party No.1 inspected the car and noticed various defects inside the engine and other parts were damaged.  The complainant immediately informed about the condition of the car to the opposite parties.  One Amiya Kumar Behuria, the Engineer of the opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and took the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party. Thereafter, the complaint made inquiry several times from the opposite party and requested them to repair the car and delivered to him, but neither the car was repaired nor, it was delivered to him.  On the pretext that for the problem of the car the Company is being approached and it will be done in good condition soon.  The complainant many times visited the workshop of Aditya car Care Private Limited, opposite party No.4, but no useful purpose was served.  Due to manufacturing defect in the car as well as the deficiency in service, complainant was suffering mental agony.  On these allegations, the complaint was filed.  It may be mentioned that in the complaint opposite party No.1 was Divisional Manager Hyundai Motors India Private Limited, opposite party no.2 was Branch Manager.  OSL Hyundai unit and opposite party No.4 Branch Manager Aditya Hyundai, Aditya car Care Private Limited, which is authorised workshop of Hundai Motors India Limited and opposite party No.3 was TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, who was insurer of the car.

5.      All the opposite parties have filed their separate written reply.  Divisional Manager Hyundai Motors India Private Limited in his written reply has stated that aforementioned car was purchased by the complainant on 25.04.2012 and a car in perfect running without any technical or mechanical defect was delivered to him.  The complainant used the car with his complete satisfaction upto mileage 14505 Km. within 15 months.  On 24.07.2013, the car was reported to the workshop of Aditya car Care Private Limited for accidental repair with the allegation of break down car at Puri due to flooding.  On examination, it was found that car was driven in flooded area, therefore, the Service Engineer informed the complainant that accidental repair work would be carried out on chargeable basis only after approval of the insurer.  Insurer was informed and the claim relating to the accepted amount in repair was made. In site of several requests of Service Engineer, the complainant has not given approval for repair work on accidental basis.  The warranty as given for the car was not applied inter alia, if damage was caused due to negligence of proper maintenance as required Owner’s manual & Service Booklet  or misuse, abuse, accident, theft, flooding or fire, use of parts other than Hyundai Genuine Parts, any device and/or accessories not supplied by HMIL.  Since the petitioner has driven the car in flooded area, which has damaged the car as such the warranty clause is not attracted.  It has been denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant had deliberately concealed the material fact relating to driving of the vehicle in flooded area.  The complainant has submitted his intimation preliminary claim form on 27.07.2013 with  TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. claiming accidental insurance claim as neither the Insurance Company nor the complainant has deposited cost of repair as such repair was not done.  Branch Manager, opposite party No.2 filed his written reply and stated that after purchase of the vehicle on 25.04.2012, first free service was done on 22.05.2012 covering 1001 Km. mileage. Thereafter the complainant reported to the workshop of opposite party No.2 on 06.01.2013 after covering 7,371 Km for repair of rear suspension of the vehicle in between this period. Although the service was due, but the vehicle was not brought to the workshop of opposite party No.2 and during this period the defect in engine is neither complaint nor was found at the time of service.  The complaint has been filed on false allegations complaining manufacturing defect and deficiency in service. 

6.      TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. opposite party No.3 filed separate written reply in which it has been stated that complainant lodged intimation regarding his alleged loss on 27.07.2013 before the insurer.  The insurer deputed his surveyor and loss assessor to examine the vehicle.  After verification the surveyor submitted his report stating therein that loss in vehicle was not covered in the policy condition, therefore, the claim was not made. 

7.      Aditya Hyundai, Aditya car Care Private Limited, opposite party No.4 filed his separate written reply in which it has been stated that the vehicle was brought to the workshop for repair after meeting an accident/flood. Since there was accidental damage, as such the authorised service station was not liable to repair the vehicle free of cost. The complainant lodged his claim before the Insurance Company claiming cost on repair. Since Insurance Company also declined to reimburse the cost of repair as such repair was not done, as the complainant was not ready to bear the cost of repair.  The opposite party issued repair orders dated 26.7.2013 and 27.7.2013 which clearly approved that the vehicle had damaged due to accident/flood. 

8.      The District Forum by judgment dated 30.5.2015 found that the complainant was a consumer as such the complaint filed by him was maintainable.  According to the complainant, the vehicle was stopped during drive all of sudden, then he made a complaint to Aditya car Care Private Limited, which was authorised workshop of Hyundai Motors India Private Limited.  On which the vehicle was taken to workshop of Aditya car Care Private Limited on 26.07.2015.  The repair order dated 26.07.2013 prepared by Service Engineer at Aditya car Care Private Limited shows that engine was stopped the cylinder were blocked connecting rod broken,  engine oil leakage. Although it is alleged that a claim was submitted before the insurer relating to the cost of repair, but the claim form does not contain the narrative of the complainant.  On behalf of the opposite parties No.1, 2 & 4, it is alleged that the defect in the car had come due to running of the car in flood area/water locked area, but it is not proved that the complainant had driven the car in flood area.  It is admitted that on 24.7.2013 when the complainant was driving the car rain was going on.  If normal rain water entered into the engine of the car, then it was a manufacturing defect and the vehicle was within warranty period liable to be repaired.  On these findings the complaint was partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 to 3 were directed to repair the vehicle as stated above. Hyundai Motors India Private Limited, opposite party No.1 filed First Appeal No.327 of 2015.  Branch Manger OLS, Hyundai, Unit of OSL Motors Private Limited, opposite party no.2 filed First Appeal No.367 of 2015.  Aditya car Care Centre Private Limited, opposite party No.4 filed First Appeal No.406 of 2015.  From the aforesaid orders, all the three appeals were consolidated heard together by State Commission, who by judgment dated 18.02.2021 held that technical expert Mr. M.R. Lal in his analysis has observed that water had entered into the engine system through air filter due to contact of water with the valve/piston the above parts loose their temper and it may also stick/seized at the same time the crankshaft try to move the piston up and down forcibly due to forcible movement, it may affect/broken/bend/damages the affected part in the affected.  The suspected vehicle running after water entered in the engine system.  In such circumstance, the dispute between the parties as to whether the car was run in flooded area or rain water entered in the car.  The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show that the car was run in the flooded area.  If the water entered into engine while driving in rainy season that it was a manufacturing defect and the order of District Forum directing to repair the vehicle as it was within warranty period does not suffer any illegality.  On these findings, the appeal has been dismissed.  Hence, this revision has been filed by opposite party No2.

9.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. From the technical expert report submitted by the authorised service centre, it is proved that the water entered in the engine of the car which has damaged the engine piston etc.  According to opposite parties No.1,2 & 4, the water has entered the engine through air filter as the complainant has run the car in the flooded area.  Both the District Forum and State Commission have concurrently held that the opposite party has failed to prove that the car was run in flooded area on 24.07.2013.  Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd., (2016) 8 SCC 286 has held that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Foras below cannot be interfered by National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus the only dispute between the parties is as to whether the rain water entered the engine, which is normally not possible except for the manufacturing defect in the car.  The car was within warranty period. If any manufacturing defect has occurred, then it was liable to be repaired by the petitioner free of cost.  The fora below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

O R D E R

The revision has no merit and it is dismissed.