Haryana

StateCommission

A/186/2017

HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT GUPTA

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                First Appeal No.186 of 2017

                                                                Date of Institution:17.02.2017

                                                                   Date of Decision:20.12.2017

 

Hyundai Motors India Ltd. having its office at 5^th Floor, Corporate one (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.

…Appellant

                                      Versus

 

1.      Surender Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh, R/o Kila No.60/22, Vishal Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.

2.      Srishti Hyundai Motors Pvt. Ltd., Opp. New Power House, Jind Bypass Road, Rohtak through its Manager.

                                                                                      …Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

 

Present:     Mr.Amit Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Respondents already ex-parte.

                  

 

                                                ORDER

 

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

1.      As per complainant, he purchased  a Hyundai I-20 car 1.4 white car bearing registration No.HR-12T-9222 from opposite party No.2 (in short ‘OP’) and OP No.1 is manufacturer. On 01.12.2012 when he was coming from Sirsa to Rohtak suddenly power steering of the car stopped working. He arranged a crane to bring car to service station of OP No.2 and it was found that MDPS-ECU assembly was not working properly so steering was jammed. Car was delivered to him on the same day after assurance that defect was removed, but on 11.02.2013 steering of car again created problem. It was further alleged that he called helpline number of OP No.2 but, an employee of OP No.2 refused to come. Due to abovesaid problem an accident occurred on 28.02.2013 and car was damaged from the front side and was repaired by OP No.2. He also sustained injuries. Same problem appeared many times and he requested OPs to replace car and compensate the loss caused to him, but, they did not pay any heed.

2.      Upon notice Ops filed separate written replies. OP No.1 alleged that when complainant reported at workshop of OP No.2, effected part of steering was replaced under warranty and joint test drive was taken for checking. During the test drive no problem was observed. It was further submitted that vehicle in question was being used continuously and till 03.03.2014 covered 25805 Kms and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                OP No.2 submitted that on 01.02.2012 complainant left his car at the workshop of answering OP for running repair. There was no defect of any sort, but, just for satisfaction of the complainant controller Assy-MDPS, one of the part was changed. It was alleged that accident occurred due to lack of skill of driving on the part of complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

in the vehicle in question.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide order dated 13.01.2017 and directed as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant shall handover the vehicle in question to the opposite parties and in turn opposite parties shall remove the problem of steering by replacing the whole “steering system” at their own costs after taking satisfaction letter from the complainant and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/- (Rs. Three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within 20 days from the date of handing over the vehicle by the complainant with the opposite parties.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of learned counsel for appellant only are heard because respondents were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2017. File perused.

6.      Impugned order is modified to the effect that OPs will repair the steering system on their own costs to the satisfaction of complainant and if the same is not repaired then whole system should be replaced as ordered by learned District Forum. With these modification, appeal stands disposed off.

7.      Statutory amount of Rs.1,850/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

December, 20 ^th 2017             Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K. Bishnoi

                                                Member                                              Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                                        Addl. Bench

 

R.K.