Counsel for the petitioner drew attention the impugned order of the State Commission and read out the relevant portion, which is reproduced below:
“Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was only able to peruse copy of the order dated 09.07.2017 for the first time on 11.07.2018, thereafter the order was sent to its legal counsel for opinion on filing of an appeal. The legal counsel gave his opinion. Thereafter the legal counsels of the appellant company were asked on 28.07.2018 to prepare First Appeal. The appeal was prepared on 31.07.2018 and then was again sent to the appellant company for its comments. Thereafter ultimately draft was sent to local counsel, but due to change in his address, the draft was misplaced and after receiving back, it was resent on 17.09.2018. Thereafter on 20.09.2018, the appeal has been preferred. Hence there was bonafide reasons on part of the counsel for filing the appeal so lately. Hence it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on its merits as the appellant has a good case on merits and appeal filed by the present respondent NO.2 is also pending, hence, both the appeals may be clubbed and heard together.
We have perused the entire facts.
Looking to the present status of the appellant company and other presumptions, as they may avail services of some legal counsel for obtaining opinion, it is required by the appellant company so as to file the appeal within time.
Looking to the entire material available before us, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not shown sufficient reasons for filing the instant appeal after 43 days of limitation (41 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order).
Consequently, I.A. No.1, for condonation of delay, is hereby dismissed. As the appeal is barred by limitation, hence the appeal is also dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.”
4. I have carefully gone through the impugned order and I am unable to find any error of fact or law in the same. Counsel for the petitioner insisted that merit was being sacrificed and also took shelter behind some citations which had permitted delays on the ground that the facts and circumstances of the cases justified the same.
5. Bare facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Elantra Car for Rs.15,84,104/- from the respondent no.2-Manglam Hyundai. Since purchase, the car displayed defects in steering wheel (automatic locking while driving). This was brought to the notice of respondent no.2. Car was subsequently handed over to the complainant but the problem remained. The car was therefore sent to the work station. The complainant has listed in his complaint 17 instances when he had to send his car for repair etc.; however, the problem remained unresolved. This caused him tremendous mental agony quite apart from the risk involved in driving a car in which steering wheel locked automatically. This complaint was contested before the District Forum which, through a reasoned order, concluded that the complaint was proved and accordingly directed that the respondent take back the said car and provide him a new car of the same model or return Rs.15,84,104/-.
6. The District Forum reasoned that the fact that the complainant had to bring the car on several dates for repair and that the defects of steering wheel still remained were enough to establish the defect in the car and deficiency in service thereafter.
7. I have given careful thought to this entire matter. When a person spends over Rs.15 Lakhs to purchase a car, and that too from a company of repute such as the petitioner company-M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., he expects defect free service for many years. He certainly does not expect to visit the garage the number of times that he had to in the instant case. The argument put forth by the counsel for the petitioner that many of these visits were routine in nature does not take away the seriousness of the complaint, which was, in essence, an annoying and dangerous defect in the steering wheel, which cannot be called routine and which certainly has a major bearing on the driving experience.
8. When after such a complaint has been agitated before the District Forum which has heard both the parties, and then, an appeal against this is filed with a delay of more than a month, and the same is sought to be explained away by citing all the processes in getting approval for filing the complaint from the company, the picture becomes complete and is one which reeks of deficiency and arrogance and callousness all along. I can only further add that the petitioner company would do better to spend all this energy in improving it’s services to the consumer. Everyone wants a hassle free car. When it is not so, it is expected that the service providing companies are sympathetic and understanding and make an honest effort to understand and recompense the consumer complainant, rather than engage in legal battles.
9. In any case, in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Commission, I am unable to find any error in the manner in which, the State Commission has appreciated the application for condonation of delay and found it wanting.
