STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 80 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | : | 4.3.2014 |
Date of Decision | : | 1.5.2014 |
KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Phase-1, near Tribune Chowk through its Director.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
V e r s u s
1. Surbhi Gupta wife of Sh.Pankaj Gupta, # 362, Sector 13 Extn. Urban Estate, Karnal (Haryana) PIN 132001
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., North Regional office, DLF Tower-3, 3rd Floor,RajeevGandhiTechnologyPark,Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
3. Orion Motors Pvt. Ltd., 7th K.M.Stone, Opp. BBMB, O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar (Haryana)
4. Samta Hyundai, 119/8, Milestrone, G.T.Road, Karnal through its Proprietor.
Argued by:
First Appeal No. | : | 89 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | : | 7.3.2014 |
Date of Decision | : | 1.5.2014 |
1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., North Regional office, DLF Tower-3, 3rd Floor, Rajeev Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director now at Hyundai Motor India Limited, Plot No.H-1 SIPCOT, Industrial Park, Irrugattukottai Sriperumbudar Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu-602105 through its authorized representative Manish Kumar.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
V e r s u s
1. Surbhi Gupta wife of Sh.Pankaj Gupta, # 362, Sector 13 Extn. Urban Estate, Karnal (Haryana) PIN 132001
2. KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Phase-1,Chandigarh
3. Orion Motors Pvt. Ltd., 7th K.M.Stone, Opp. BBMB, O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar (Haryana)
4. Samta Hyundai, 119/8, Milestrone, G.T.Road, Karnal through its Proprietor
Respondents
BEFORE:
Argued by:
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
two89 of 2014 tiled asOpposite Party No.1 (now appellant), against the order dated30.1.2014,
“15] In view of the foregoing discussion & findings, we opine that the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect, as a result, the maneuvering of steering is not smooth, the vehicle is pulling on to the left hand side and there is unusual wear & tear of the tyres. Resultantly, the complainant had to undergo a lot of physical harassment, mental tension as well as he was forced to enter into unnecessary litigation on this account. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2, is writ large. We therefore allow this complaint against OPs No.1 & 2. Accordingly, the OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally, directed as under:-
i) To replace the said Verna Car with a brand new car of the same make & model, free of charge. In case, the car of same make & model is not available, then a new model of the same Car be supplied to the complainant, by charging or refunding the difference of amount/cost of the previous car i.e. Rs.807000/-. The complainant shall also take the car in question to the workshop of OP No.1 & 2 within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
ii) To pay a sum of Rs.22,472/- to the complainant, which she had paid to PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh for getting the vehicle inspected, as per their demand made vide letter dated 11.06.2013 (Marked as Y).
iii) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing her great mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to jointly & severally pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.11.2012 till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
iii) In case the OPs No.1 & 2 fail to comply with the order as at Para No.15(i), then they would be liable to refund the cost of the car at which rate it was sold to the complainant.”
2.
3.
4. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to receive an e-mail dated 21.8.2012 from Opposite Party No.2, that as a goodwill gesture Opposite Party No.1 had agreed to bear 20% of the cost of tyres, which was duly replied to by him vide Annexure 23 requesting to replace the car or refund the entire cost of the same. It was further stated that at that time the vehicle was still in the warranty period. It was further stated that the complainant was not in a position to get any report from an independent expert, in respect of said vehicle, because as per the terms & conditions of Opposite Party NO.1 Company, in order to maintain the validity of new vehicle’s basic warranty, the same (vehicle) could be checked only by an authorised dealer and Service Centre. It was further stated that the vehicle, in question, was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that despite many requests, the Opposite Parties, failed to replace the vehicle. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
5. In its reply, Opposite Party No.1, admitted the sale of car to the complainant on 28.12.2010. It was denied that the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect, as alleged by the complainant. It was stated that the car had already covered
6. In its reply Opposite Party No.2, admitted the purchase of vehicle by the complainant from Opposite Party No.3. It was stated that the complainant came for wheel alignment and as such, the same was done as per the warranty terms & conditions to her entire satisfaction. The complainant also came with some problem of suspension/shockers of the car and the same was rectified to her satisfaction. It was further stated that the complainant came with the problem of noise while turning on 20.5.2011, and second free service
7. Opposite Party No.3 in its reply admitted the purchase of car, in question, by the complainant from it. It was stated that the said car was purchased from Opposite Party No.3, but the same was never brought to it again either for service or
8. Opposite Party No.4, sent reply through post stating therein that the car, in question, was reported to it, only once that too, for the first free service, which was done. It was denied that the complainant reported the problem of left side pulling and wheel alignment. It was stated that there was, therefore, no deficiency in rendering service on the part of Opposite Party No.4 nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
9. Later on none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, and thus, they were proceeded against exparte.
10. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
11. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 &2, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated, in the opening para of this order.
12. Feeling aggrieved, First Appeal 80 of 2014 titled as. was filed by Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), for setting aside the impugned order.
13. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 14. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, in First Appeal No.80 of 2014 titled as, submitted that the car, in question, was never purchased from it, nor it is the manufacturer of the same.
15. , submitted that, no doubt, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is the manufacturer of the vehicle, in question. It was purchased by the complainant/respondent No.1 from Opposite Party No.3 its dealer.PECUniversityChandigarhEngineeringCollege
16. The Counsel for respondent No1/complainant, in both the appeals submitted that the car, in question, was suffering from the inherent manufacturing defect, right from the beginning. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties could not rectify the problem of left hand side pulling of the car, despite a number of visits to the service centre. He further submitted that the District Forum rightly directed the replacement of the car. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid does not require interference of this Commission.
17. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether the car in question, which was purchased by respondent No.1/complainant, from Opposite Party No.3, an authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1, on 28.12.2010, in the sum of Rs. 8,07,000/- was suffering from Thereafter, Annexure C-7 email dated 17.5.2011, was sent to the customer care of Opposite Party Automobile Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) on 3.9.2011 as is evident from Annexure C-11, Job card/invoice18. No doubt, at the time of filing the complaint, no expert opinion was produced, by the complainant. However, during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application dated 20.3.2013, for obtaining the expert opinion from any Engineering College/Institute regarding manufacturing defect in the car. PECUniv.Chandigarh, to constitute a panel of experts to inspect the car of the complainant for the defects mentioned in the complaint. Accordingly, the car was sent to the Mechnical Engg. Deptt., PECUniv.Technology,Chandigarh, for the aforesaid purpose. It is evident that the Committee of experts, comprising Dr. V.P. Singh, Associate Professor, Dr. Sushant Samir, Assistant Professor,
“Ms. Surbhi Gupta, owner of the vehicle and her husband Sh. Pankaj Gupta were present during inspection and test drive. No person(s) from opposite parties were present during inspection and test dirve.
The vehicle Hyundai Verna VGT SX BS IV having registration No.HR 05 AB 8493, Chasis No.MALCFM41VLAM096025J and engine no.D4FAAU901344 was presented for inspection and test drive. The reading of the odometer at the time of inspection was at 32422. Chandigarh.
The committee after, perusal of records, inspection and test drive is of the opinion that the vehicle in question is pulling on to the left hand side of the vehicle while driving. The wear and tear of the tyres is not normal and proper.
19. The perusal of the afore-extracted operative part of the report of the Expert Committee, clearly reveals that the vehicle, in question, was pulling on to the left hand side while being driven. It is further evident from the said report that wear and tear of the tyres was not normal and proper. In addition the maneuvering of steering was not smooth which was not desirable. Univ.Technology,Chandigarh
20. No doubt, objections to the report, were filed by Opposite Party No.1, which were also adopted by Opposite Party No.2, to the effect, that the inspection report of the members of the Expert Committee of Mechnical Engg. Deptt.PECUniv.Chandigarh, was not sustainable, in the eye of law, as the same was defective. It was stated, in the objections, that the report of the Committee could not be treated to be an expert opinion. It was further stated, in the objections, that the members of the Expert Committee, did not give any conclusive report, regarding the manufacturing defect in the car.. It was further stated in the objections that Mr. Manish Kumar, who was working as Assistant Manager Legal
21. The next question, that falls for consideration, is as to whether, the District Forum was right in directing Opposite Party No.1, to replace the car with a brand new car of the same make & model, free of charge and in case the car of the same make & model was not available, then a new model of the same car be supplied to the complainant, by charging or refunding the difference of amount/cost of the previous car. We are of the considered opinion, that Opposite Party No.1, being manufacturer of the car, in question, which was purchased by the complainant, was rightly directed by the District Forum to replace the same, as it found that the same was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. Such relief having been granted by the District Forum against Opposite Party No.1, could be said to be legally justified.
22. The next question, that falls for consideration, is as to whether the District Forum was right in awarding a sum of Rs.1.00 lac 20,233 kms as on 18.8.2012 in about 2 years from the date of its purchase.
23. The District Forum in para No.15(iii) of the impugned order also directed Opposite Party No.1&2,
24. The next question, that falls for consideration, is as to whether Opposite Party No.2/appellant, in First Appeal No.80 of 2014 could be fastened with any liability or not. It may be stated here, that no, doubt, Opposite Party No.2, is an authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1, but the car was not purchased from it. The car was purchased from Opposite Party No.3. The car was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, with the complaint of left hand side pulling (LHSP) again and again and its Engineers tried their level best to rectify the same. If ultimately the car, in question was found to be having inherent manufacturing defect, then it was only the manufacturer, which was liable to replace the same. No liability, whatsoever, could be fastened
25. ., filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1-Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the manufacturer, is partly accepted, with no order as costs, and the order of the District Forum is modified as under:-
i) Appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is directed to replace the said Verna Car with a brand new car of the same make & model, free of charge. In case, car of the same make & model is not available, then a new model of the same Car be supplied to the complainant, by charging or refunding the difference of amount/cost of the previous car i.e. Rs.807000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
ii)
iii) Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.22,472/- to the complainant, which she had paid to PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh for getting the vehicle inspected, as per their demand made vide letter dated 11.06.2013, as directed by the District Forum.
iv)
v) Other directions given, and reliefs granted, by the District Forum,
26.
27.
28.
Pronounced.
1.5.2014
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
mp
(First Appeal No.2014 )
Argued by:
Dated the
ORDER
DEV RAJ MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Mp.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 89 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | : | 7.3.2014 |
Date of Decision | : | 1.5.2014 |
Hyundai Motor India Ltd., North Regional office, DLF Tower-3, 3rd Floor, Rajeev Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director now at Hyundai Motor India Limited, Plot No.H-1 SIPCOT, Industrial Park, Irrugattukottai Sriperumbudar Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu-602105 through its authorized representative Manish Kumar.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
V e r s u s
1. Surbhi Gupta wife of Sh.Pankaj Gupta, # 362, Sector 13 Extn. Urban Estate, Karnal (Haryana) PIN 132001
2. KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Phase-1,Chandigarh
3. Orion Motors Pvt. Ltd., 7th K.M.Stone, Opp. BBMB, O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar (Haryana)
4. Samta Hyundai, 119/8, Milestrone, G.T.Road, Karnal through its Proprietor
Respondents
BEFORE:
Argued by:
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded, in the connected, this appeal has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with modification, as per the directions given therein. Certified copy of that order be placed on this file.
2.Certified copies of the main order, alongwith this order, be sent to the parties, free-of-charge.
3.
Pronounced
1.5.2014
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
mp
