Haryana

Ambala

CC/126/2010

PREM CHAND S/O SH CHHANGU RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMTA HYUNDAI - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.GARG

17 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

   Complaint Case No.:   126 of 2010

    Date of Institution    :  15.04.2010

    Date of Decision       :  17.06.2015

Prem Chand son of Chhangu Ram R/o H.No.517/1 Spatu Road Ambala City at present R/o H.No.196, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City.                                                                                                                                                                                     ……Complainant.

Versus

1.       Samta Hyundai near Vita Milk Plant G.T. Road Ambala City through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

2.       Hyundai Motor India Ltd. A-30 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Phase-I  Mathura Road, New Delhi through its MD/authorized signatory.                                                                                                                               ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.B.S. Garg, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Dev Batra, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Mahesh Batra, Adv. for OP No.2.

ORDER.

1.                Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant purchased a Verna CRDI Car from OP No.1 on 17.04.2009 for a sum of Rs.7,36,507/- which  was got registered with the Registration Authority, Ambala vide Regd. No.HR01-Z-0196 in the name of  complainant.  At the time of purchase, OP No.1 had assured that in case of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the same will be replaced as a whole. It has been further averred by the complainant that the vehicle in question started rubbing/damaging the front tyres and after about one & half month from its purchase, this defect was brought to the notice of Op No.1 but the complainant was told  that service engineer of OP No.2 shall inspect the vehicle and defect, if any, shall be removed and to remove the defect, vehicle was kept by OP No.1 in his workshop and after three days, the vehicle was returned by OP No.1 to the complainant with the assurance  that the defects have been removed and in future the vehicle will not cause any such problem. But, as per complainant, the defect remained as such and after sometime condition of the front tyres  further deteriorated & became unserviceable.  So, the matter was again brought to the notice of OP No.1 who assured to remove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and  agreed to replace both the tyres after consulting with OP No.2 but in vain. In the end, complainant has alleged that the Ops have intentionally sold him a defective vehicle knowing fully well regarding manufacturing defects in it and prayed for acceptance of the complaint as per prayer clause.  

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their separate written statements. OP No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint in the present form and urged that the answering OP is just a dealer of the OP No.2 and the vehicles are sold to the customers in the condition they are received from the manufacturer.  However, for satisfaction of complainant, the tyres of the car in question were replaced with new tyres and alignment & wheel balancing was also got done free of cost to the entire satisfaction of the customer. On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle in question as  received from the manufacturer, was sold to the complainant in good condition  and free service of the vehicle was done on 15.05.2009, thereafter the vehicle was reported at the mileage of 1576 for accidental repair and accordingly the needful was done without any loss of time.  As per their record, it is only on 25.12.2009 when the vehicle in question had already covered 15458  miles  i.e. after 8 months of the sale of the vehicle, the complainant personally reported regarding the excess tyre wear and accordingly the same was thoroughly checked and needful was done at the earliest moment. Rest of the contents have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

                   OP No.2 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is baseless, frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts.  The vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant by Op No.1 in perfect condition without any technical or mechanical defect and  the alleged complaint regarding excess tyre wear is not a defect much  less manufacturing defect  and answering OP  cannot held liable for the same.  However, whenever the complainant reported his vehicle with the alleged concern at the workshop of OP No.1, prompt and efficient service in line within the warranty policy was rendered to him all the times.  It  has further been submitted that thorough examinations and road test/test drives were conducted and no mechanical or technical defects were found in complainant’s car at any point of time.  Despite this, the answering OP being a customer driven company, offered to replace the depleted tyres, if any, of the car in question , however complainant was not ready for the same and was adamant for replacement of the car.  It is most relevant  to mention here that the tyres of the vehicle are warranted  by the manufacturer of the tyres and not by the answering OP as per the warranty policy relevant portion of which is reproduced below:                        

“3.     What is not covered

-Batteries, tyres and tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by  HMIL.”

 

                   On merits, it has been urged by OP No.2 that on the basis of information received  from OP No.1 regarding alleged defect in the car, it was kept under observation, wheel alignment &  wheel balancing  was carried out and the car was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition. It has further been urged that the car might have been driven over potholes and bad roads in a rash & negligent manner leading to the alleged wearing of the tyres.  The tyre,  in any case is a wear and tear item and the degree of wear and tear depends on various parameters like driving habits, road conditions, usage of brakes, proper maintenance and proper air pressure etc. It has been denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Manjul Batra as Annexure RX and counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Mr. Munish Kumar, Assistant Manager (Legal) as Annexure RY and closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the car in question and due to which front tyres started rubbing/damaging and became unserviceable within about two months of its purchase.  Several requests were made to the Ops but they failed to rectify the inherent manufacturing defect and prayed for either replacement of the vehicle or refund of its invoice value alongwith interest and compensation.    

                   On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops argued that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.   However, as a gesture of goodwill and keeping in view the reputation of the company, front tyres of the vehicle were replaced with new one and even alignment & wheel balancing too were got done from a private showroom M/s Walia Tyres, free of costs to the entire satisfaction of complainant. The counsel for the Ops further argued that the car in question has been plied to the entire satisfaction of complainant covering 30225 kilometers from the date of its purchase i.e. 17.04.2009 to 09.07.2010.  Had the vehicle been defective, it would not have covered such distance in a period of  about one year and two months.  The tyres  in any case is a wear & tear item and the degree of wear & tear depends on various parameters like driving habits, road conditions, usage of brakes, proper maintenance and correct tyre pressure etc.  There could be some external factors acting on tyre due to which the tyres suffers irregular wear.  Besides it, the counsel for the Ops also argued that the complainant has filed a frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing defect in the car without producing any expert opinion as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act  which says that “ where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined  without proper analysis or test of the goods,  the District Forum shall after obtaining a sample of goods, send it to appropriate laboratory with a direction that such laboratory make such analysis or test with a view to find out whether  such goods suffer from any defect, alleged in the complaint or from any other defect.”  The counsel for the Ops also relied upon case law reported in CPJ 2006(II)page 143 (N.C)  titled as Dagadu Bhairu Bhosale Vs. Scooter India Ltd. etc.  wherein it has been reported that “in the absence of an expert report,  the Forum cannot determine the defect in the goods.”

5.                After hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the records, it is an admitted fact that the car  in question was having two years warranty as per warranty policy of the company (Annexure C-8) but the complainant has failed to produce any document or report  of any technical expert in support of his version to prove that the car was having any manufacturing defects and further that  the Ops have violated the terms & conditions of the warranty clause.

                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops rather they were prompt in providing good services to the complainant by replacing the front tyres with new tyres as a gesture of goodwill.  As such, the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the Ops.   Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present  complaint and thus the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

 

 

Announced:17.06.2015                                                          

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                     (A.K. SARDANA)

                     PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                                  Sd/-

              (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                         MEMBER