Haryana

StateCommission

A/764/2016

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUKHJINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL GUPTA

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    764 of 2016

Date of Institution:    22.08.2016

Date of Decision :     10.01.2017

 

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT, Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudar Taluk, Kancheepuram District Tamilnadu-602105 through its authorised representative.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Sukhjinder Singh s/o Sh. Jasbir Singh, Resident of Village Saddopur, P.O. Kakru, Tehsil and District Ambala.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Samta Motors through authorised signatory near Vita Milk Plant, G.T. Road, Ambala City, Haryana.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Amit Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ranjan Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Hyundai Motor India Limited-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated June 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Sukhjinder Singh-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties for selling defective car to him, was accepted in the following terms:-

“….So, we have no hesitation in holding that the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and are bound to rectify the defects in the vehicle in question. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions jointly & severally within 30 days from the communication of this order:-

(i)      To replace the engine of the car in question and handover the car to the complainant in perfectly working condition to his entire satisfaction and if it is not possible due to any reason whatsoever, then refund the cost of the car in question to the complainant as per sale invoice alongwith simple interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of complaint to till date.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony etc to the complainant.

(iii)     Also to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation costs including Advocate’s fee etc.

Further the award/directions issued above must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period otherwise all the awarded amounts shall fetch simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default and the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act for implementation of the said order.”   

2.                The complainant-respondent No.1 purchased a Verna Car bearing registration No.HR-01AD-1221 from Samta Motors-Opposite Party/respondent No.2 on 17^th August, 2011 vide Sale Certificate (Annexure C-1) for Rs.9,44,000/-. After running about 1795 kms. some defects were noticed in the car. The complainant brought the car to opposite party No.2 on 28^th September, 2011 and some repairs were carried out in the car. But still the defects could not be rectified.  The complainant brought his car to the opposite party No.2 on 05.05.2012, 21.11.2012, 29.11.2012, 10.12.2012 and 02.01.2013 but to no avail. Lastly, on 16.08.2013 the car stopped on the way and it was towed to the opposite party No.2. The complainant requested to replace the vehicle but the opposite parties did not pay any heed despite legal notice dated 25.11.2013. Compelled under the circumstances, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                Opposite Parties contested complaint. The opposite party No.1 in its written version stated that the car was sold by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant in perfect condition. Free services were also provided to the complainant at the relevant times but no defect was noticed in the car. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party No.2 in its separate written version also denied the allegations of the complainant. It was pleaded that the car was running smoothly. As and when the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No.2, it was checked and repaired to the satisfaction of the customer.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and issued directions as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order of the District Forum by raising two fold arguments. Firstly, that the car was purchased on 17^th August, 2011 whereas the complaint was filed 2^nd January, 2014, that is, beyond the period of two years as prescribed in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Secondly, that there was no evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the car.

7.                Indisputably, the car was purchased on 17^th August, 2011 and the Extended Warranty was up to 16^th August, 2014. Thus, the complaint was within limitation and the contention raised in this respect is repelled.

8.                Secondly, the defect being noticed in the car, the complainant brought the car to the opposite party No.2 several times, that is, on 29.09.2011, 21.11.2012, 29.11.2012, 07.12.2012, 10.12.2012, 02.01.2013, 27.04.2013, 16.08.2013, 01.10.2013, 10.08.2013 and 16.08.2013 but the defect could not be rectified. From Job-Sheet dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure C-6) it is established that engine of the car was overheating. Besides, the photographs (Annexure C-15 to C-17) showing the opposite parties to have dismantled the engine for rectifying the defect and yet remained unable to do so. In view of this, it is abundantly clear that the car sold to the complainant was defective and the defect could not be rectified.

9.                Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors Limited versus Navin Nishchal & Anr. 2012(3) C.P.J. 718 (N.C.) held as under:-

11.    It cannot even be the case of the petitioner that a buyer of a new car would repeatedly go to the workshops of the dealer/manufacturer with flimsy complaints because doing so entails expenditure of considerable effort, time and money to the buyer. Moreover, the fact that the engine assembly had to be changed altogether is a clear admission of the reality in this case, viz., there was some manufacturing defect in the engine assembly leading to excessive consumption of engine oil and emission of smoke. However, as rightly contended by Mr. Narain, the liability of the petitioner under the warranty ended with replacement of the defective engine assembly and, even with the finding that the District Forum arrived at, the direction to replace the car was not warranted in view of the law on the subject as settled by the Apex Court (as in the case already cited above). On the other hand, there is no reason to hold that the complainant/respondent 1 did not suffer physical harassment and mental agony as well as expenditure of time and money in the process of getting the defects in his new car attended to repeatedly. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant/respondent 1 ought to be suitably compensated.”

10.              In view of the facts and the legal position enunciated above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. The opposite parties shall replace the engine of the car within 30 days and thereafter two engineers of the Opposite Parties would certify the replacement of engine and vehicle to be fit and free from any defect.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 10.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL