Delhi

East Delhi

CC/630/2013

JASLEEN KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNRISE HYUNDAI - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  630/13

 

Ms. Jasleen Kaur

W/o Shri Jasdeep

R/o 325, Jagriti Enclave

Ground Floor, Delhi – 110 092                                     …….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Sunrise Hyundai

Sunrise Autoworld Pvt. Ltd.

Sales & Service Office:

Sunrise Complex, Plot No. 32

I.P. Extn., Near Mother Dairy Plant

Opposite Pandav Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

Through its Auth. Rep./Manager/HOD

 

2. Hyundai Motor India

5 & 6 Floor, Corporate One

Baani Building, Plot No. 5

Commercial Centre, Jasola

New Delhi – 110 025

Through its Auth. Rep./Manager/HOD

 

3. Hyundai Motor India

Corporate Office:

A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044

Through its Auth. Rep./Manager/HOD                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 07.08.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 25.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 26.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Ms. Jasleen Kaur against Sunrise Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Hyundai Motor India (OP-2 & 3) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased vehicle bearing no. DL-7C-L-5406, vide its chasis no. MALBB51BLBM300829D, engine no. G4LABM673072, Model i20 Sportz 1.2 BSIV Crystal White, on 30.05.2011 from Sunrise Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), the authorized dealer of Hyundai Motor India (OP-2&3).  It has been stated that since its purchase, there were some manufacturing defect/mechanical fault in steering of the vehicle as during plying of the vehicle, the steering of the vehicle suddenly kept on stopping/jamming.  For this, complaint was made to OP-1 as well as authorized service centre i.e. Samara Hyundai of OP-1, however, the problem remained which was not rectified.

          It has further been stated that due to this fault, complainant was facing a lot of difficulties because after every 1000 km. of its repairing, the said problem remained.  Whenever the complaint was made, the complainant was assured, but it was not rectified due to which the complainant came under tension and suffered mental agony caused by deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

          Legal notice of dated 13.03.2013 was given to OP-1.  Thus, the complainant have prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment alongwith replacement of the faulty vehicle or return the cost of the said vehicle with litigation expanses of Rs. 11,000/-.

3.       In the reply filed on behalf of OP-1, they have stated that the complainant brought the vehicle for service to the Service Centre II of OP-1 for second free service on 06.03.2012.  The second free service was done to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Thereafter, the said vehicle was never brought to the service centre of OP-1 and as per the record; the other services were performed by Deep Hyundai.  They have denied that there has been any manufacturing defect. 

          In the reply of OP-2&3, they have stated that the complaint was barred by limitation.  Further, the vehicle was used continuously for more than two years, which were delivered on 05.06.2011 and as per available information by 17.08.2013, the vehicle last reported at workshop, it covered about 11,295 Kms.  No problem was reported on the last reporting.  They have denied that there was any manufacturing defect.  Further, they have stated that if there would have been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle could not have covered 11,295 Kms.  Thus, they have denied their liability

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas.

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined herself on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  She has also got exhibited documents such as copy of invoice (Ex.CW1/A), copy of service report (Ex.CW1/B), legal notice (Ex.CW1/C) and legal notice/reminder dated 22.05.2013 (Ex.CW1/D). 

          In defence, Sunrise Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) has examined   Shri R.N. Seth, Director, who have deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in their WS.  He has also got exhibited copy of reply of the legal notice (Ex.R1W1/A)

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP-1, OP-2&3 and have perused the material placed on record as the complainant did not appear inspite of notice.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-1, 2 & 3 that there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  They have also stated that the vehicle having covered more than 11,000 Kms., if there would have been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle could not have covered more than 11,0000 Kms.  Not only this, they have also stated that the vehicle did not report to their service centre after the second free service. 

If the documents placed on record by the complainant are gone through, it is noticed that the complainant have placed only one service report which is of dated 18.11.2012 of M/s. Samara Hyundai, the service station of M/s. Hyundai Motors showing the mileage covered as 9,430.  It was a running repair though the complainant made complaint of abnormal engine vibration / steering noisy.  Except this report, there is nothing on record filed by the complainant to show that there was any manufacturing defect.  Even the mileage stated in the service report has been 9,430 which show that the vehicle has covered enough mileage without any manufacturing fault.  Though the complainant have not placed anything on record except the service report stated earlier,     OP-2&3 have filed vehicle repair history card (Annex. 1) alongwith their reply showing the mileage covered by the vehicle as 11,295 Kms.  This report is of dated 17.08.2013 which is a paid service.  The vehicle was purchased on 05.06.2011, it means that the vehicle have been of two years old and have covered 11,295 Kms.  When the vehicle have covered more than 11,295 Kms. and was of two years old, in the absence of any other document showing that there was manufacturing defect, the assertion made by the complainant that the vehicle was defective one cannot be accepted.  When the vehicle was not defective one, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of OP-2&3 as well as OP-1 who is merely a dealer.

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to substantiate the fact of any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1,2 & 3, therefore, her complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                              (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        Member                                                     President