This is a complaint made by Raj Kumar Dalmia against Saini Hyundai, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053 and Hyundai Motors Ltd., Chennai represented by its Managing Director praying for payment of Rs.7,00,000/- as value of new car and compensation for mental agony and torture which he suffered and direction upon OP to take back the old car.

Facts in brief are that Complainant on 16/1/2014booked a new white I 20 Magna (O) car with OP No.1 who agreed to deliver the same on 28/1/2014. On 25/1/2014 the Complainant made full payment of the bill. The car carried a warranty issued by OP No.2 stating that each Hyundai vehicle shall be free from any defect in material and workmanship. On 27/1/2014 when the car bearing Registration No. WB 02 TC 554 was delivered to the Complainant, the Dash Board was chemically in burnt condition. Some patch up work was done on the Dash Board. Complainant objected at the time of delivery and staff of OP No.1 on the reverse of delivery check list challan.  The copy of said delivery check list challan is marked as annexure ‘C’.

Said delivery of the car is fraud one and exploitation of the consumer and also violation of the warranty. It also amounts to unfair trade practice. OP No. 1  desired to repair dash board  but did not agree to replace the car by a new car. Complainant was not ready to accept the burnt dash board. Complainant never contracted for receiving such a car. Ultimately Complainant issued a notice on 27/3/2014 but of no use. So Complainant filed this complaint. OP No 1 filed written version denied the allegation of the Complainant. It is stated that complaint is not maintainable. Further the allegation of burnt condition of dash board has been denied. It is further stated that it was caused due to decoration of car with perfume and others. OP No1 has stated that bottle of the perfume fell down on the dash board and so that spot appeared. OP No.1 made attempt to repair the car but Complainant refused to hand-over the car. Further OP No.1 has denied that there is any term for replacement the car. In the circumstances OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP No.2 has filed separate written version and has denied the allegation of the complaint wherein it is stated that the car was delivered in the running condition and as per warranty there is no condition that the car would be replaced. Further it is stated that since Complainant did not handover the car to the dealer it could not be made in order. In addition OP No.2 has referred certain decisions in his written version and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against that OP No.1 has filed questionnaire wherein he has emphasized as to whether car was in running condition or not. OP No.2 has also filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant. Complainant has answered the question put by the OPs. Complainant has answered to the question. Similarly, OP No.1 has filed evidence on affidavit wherein he has reiterated the facts which he has made in written version. Against this Complainant has put questionnaire and OPs have filed affidavit-in-reply.

Thereafter argument was heard.

Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

The first prayer of Complainant is refund of Rs.7,00,000/- or replacement of the car by a new car. On perusal of the bill it appears that Complainant paid Rs.5,45,342/- and also expend Rs.17,955/- as insurance charges and registration charges Rs.37,451/-. The total of this is approximately Rs.6,00,000/-. So the demand of Rs.7,00,000/- as price of the car appears to be inflated. At best Complainant can claim the market price of this car at present. But he has stated that he is using the car properly since the date of purchase that means from 25/1/2014. Further it appears that when the dealer asked Complainant to handover the car for making it like new car. Complainant did not agree to the proposal. There is no extension forthcoming as to why Complainant did not agree to this proposal. No Court or Forum provides reliefs to the party which has element of obstinacy. Accordingly the direction by the OP to pay Rs.7,00,000/- cannot be made. 

At the second place Complainant has prayed for replacing his car by a new car. It is of common prudence that a car which is being used for two and half years cannot carry the price or value which a new car has. As such this Forum does not appear to have jurisdiction to direct the OP to replace Complainant’s car by a new car.

At best Complainant can be awarded some compensatory amount for the mental agony which he suffered and to some extent which was due to his own act and conduct.

So considering the facts and circumstances let the compensation of Rs.20,000/- be awarded in favour of the Complainant.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

CC/58/2015 and the same is allowed on contest in part.

OPs are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant within 1 month from this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest p.a.