Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/498/2014

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Huundai Motor India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Bhardwaj & Aruna Sachdeva

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/498/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	24/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	17/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harjinder Singh son of S. Surinder Singh C/o Dr. Jaswinder Kaur, resident of B-106, Adesh University Campus, Barnala Road, Bathinda.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. The Managing Director,  Hyundai Motor India Limited, Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District Tamil Nadu- 602105.

 

2. Ultimate Hyundai, Plot No.154-155, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Proprietor/ Manager.

 

3. Raja Motors Hyundai, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, Complainant.
For OP No.1	:	Ms. Nitika Jindal, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

]

 

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant had purchased one Hyundai Verna car, bearing Regn. No.PB-03Y-0408, from Opposite Party No.2, on 10.08.2011. The said car met with an accident and was shifted to Opposite Party No.3, for necessary repairs, on 10.12.2012, which was delivered to the Complainant on 21.12.2012. During the servicing of the aforesaid car, on 27.4.2013, at the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, it came to notice that the rear bumper of the car was not properly fitted. On the advice of the Mechanic of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3, where the Incharge of the Workshop admitted that the repair was not done properly. Opposite Party No.3 promised to replace the, to set right the rear bumper and to fit the dickey properly. The Opposite Party No.3 received the car of the Complainant, on 13.07.2013, for repeat job and delivered the same on 20.07.2013. However, the problems of the car continued and remained unredressed, in as much as, the penal was changed but the rear bumper was neither changed nor repaired. The locks of bumper were broken. Only temporary adjustment was made using fevi-quick etc. The dickey was also not properly fitted. It has been alleged that due to poor workmanship, coupled with manufacturing defect, the water started filling in the rear tail lamp during the rainy days. When the repeated requests of the Complainant to Opposite Party No.3, did not fructify, the Complainant filed a Complaint with Opposite Party No.1 via e-mail on 4.8.2013 (Annexure C-1). In response to the aforesaid Complaint, the Opposite Party No.3 replaced rear tail lamp, which was under warranty, vide invoice dated 7.8.2013. Since the rear bumper was not replaced, the Complainant again sent an e-mail to Opposite Party No.1 on 14.8.2013 (Annexure C-2), upon which the Opposite Party No.3 insisted the Complainant to change the rear bumper under insurance policy. It has been averred that since the rear bumper was damaged by Opposite Party No.3, it was its duty to replace the same and fix the dickey properly, but it did not take any corrective measure. It has been further alleged on findings spots of corrosion, at different places of the car in question, the Complainant reported the same to the Opposite Party No.2 vide e-mail dated 27.3.2014 (Annexure C-3), but to no avail. On 1.4.2014, one Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, representative of Opposite Party No.3 took the photographs of the car of the Complainant, but thereafter when no action was taken, the Complainant sent e-mails dated 9.4.2014 and 13.4.2014 (Annexure C-4 & C-5). The Complainant also approached the Opposite Parties vide request letter dated 16.4.2014 (Annex.C-6) to provide expert report regarding the corrosion/rusting of the aforesaid car, but no action was taken. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 21.04.2014 (Annexure C-7) and 07.05.2014 (Annexure C-10) upon the Opposite Parties. In response to the aforesaid legal notices Opposite Party No.3 vide its reply dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure C-9) offered to repaint the portions of corrosion; while Opposite Party No.2 in its reply dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure C-12) required the Complainant to bring his car for inspection. However, the Complainant did not receive any reply from Opposite Party No.1. It has been averred that on 29.5.2014, the Complainant took his vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for inspection. The Opposite Party No.2 took the photographs of some of the affected areas of the car, for further sending the same to HMIL, for the expert opinion to know the reasons of corrosion (Annexure C-13). When the Complainant did not receive any positive response from the side of Opposite Party No.2, he preferred the present Consumer Complaint before this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, has pleaded that there is no allegation against the answering Opposite Party in the Complaint. The allegations made by the Complainant primarily relates to Opposite Party No.3. It has been submitted that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been made party only to create jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been further pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, as far as spots of corrosion is concerned. It has been submitted that at various occasions, when the Complainant has brought the vehicle for service, no Complaint in respect of corrosion was made and only after more than 2½ years the Complainant had raised the frivolous issue relating to corrosion. It has been pleaded that the rusting was not on account of any defect, but may have occurred on account of paint scratch, damage and other reasons, which may be attributable to a number of external factors. The representative of the Workshop was always in touch with the Complainant for resolution of his concern, but his demand for replacement of complete vehicle cannot be met. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has admitted that the vehicle was purchased from it and service was done to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant which is evident from the job card dated 27.4.2013. While admitting the receipt of legal notice dated 12.5.2014, it has been submitted that vide letter dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure C-12) the Complainant was requested to bring the car for inspection. The Complainant brought the vehicle to the Workshop of the answering Opposite Party on 29.5.2014 for inspection (Job Card Annexure R-2/5). It has been urged that the answering Opposite Party was always willing to rectify the defect and the pictures of the area where paint was defective were clicked and forwarded to HMIL to get an expert opinion. However, it was the Complainant who was not willing to get his vehicle rectified and demanded replacement of the vehicle after the expiry of the warranty period, which expired on 09.08.2013 as the vehicle was purchased on 10.08.2011. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     Opposite Party No.3, in its written statement, has pleaded that the Complainant had purchased the car from Opposite Party No.2 at Chandigarh and if there is any manufacturing defect, then it is the responsibility of Opposite Party No.2 to check the vehicle to satisfy the Complainant. Even the legal notice dated 7.5.2014 (Annexure C-10) and its reply dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure C-12) by the Opposite Party No.2 proves that problem of rusting and corrosion of the plaint has nothing to do with the answering Opposite Party. Even vide Annexure C-13 the Opposite Party No.2 has offered to rectify the defect. In view of this the answering Opposite Party cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It has been also admitted that the vehicle met with an accident and the Complainant took it for repair to Opposite Party No.3 at Bathinda on 10.12.2012 and the same was delivered to him after its repair on 21.12.2012. It was only after 7-8 months of the repair of the vehicle that on 13.7.2013 the Complainant again brought his vehicle to the answering Opposite Party and after its repair, it was again delivered to him on 20.7.2013. Even at that time also no Complaint was lodged by the Complainant with regard to defect in repair done by the answering Opposite Party. It has been urged that the rear bumper of the car was changed when the car was under repair for the first time after the accident between 10.12.2012 and 21.12.2012 (Annexure OP-3/2). Similarly, the panel back of car was replaced free of cost on 13.07.2013. Even the bumper was adjusted on 28.05.2013 vide job card Annexure OP-3/3 and the Complainant gave satisfactory note with regard to the adjustment of rear bumper on 31.05.2013 (Annexure OP-3/4). As soon as the Complainant complained to the answering Opposite Party with regard to corrosion of paint at different places, the answering Opposite Party immediately forwarded the Complaint to the Opposite Party No.1 on 1.4.2014 and next day the answering Opposite Party received reply from Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the defect in colour on the affected area. But the Complainant did not agree for the same and never brought his vehicle to the workshop of answering Opposite Party for its paint work. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

6.     The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 have been controverted.

 

 

7.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

8.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the entire record before us, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Parties.

 

9.     The main allegation of the Complainant revolves around the rusting/corrosion on some exterior portion(s) of his Hyundai Verna car. At the outset, it is imperative to visit the Hyundai Warranty Policy, placed on record by the Opposite Party No.1 as Annexure-1, the relevant excerpt of which reads as under:-

 

•  

Hyundai Motor India Limited herein after called "HMIL” warrants that each new Hyundai vehicle sold shall be free from any defects in material and workmanship, under normal use and maintenance, subject to the following terms and conditions.

 

1. Warranty period

This warranty shall exist for a period of 24 months from the date of delivery of the first purchaser irrespective of the mileage. However, the warranty of Verna being used for commercial purpose such as Taxi/ Tourist operation is 24 months/ 40,000 kilometers from the date of delivery whichever is earlier. This warranty is transferable to subsequent owner for the remaining warranty period. This warranty is applicable only in India and not transferable to any other country.

 

2. What is covered

 

Except as provided in paragraph 3 hereof, our Authorized Dealers shall either repair or replace, any Hyundai genuine part that is acknowledged by HMIL to be defective in material or workmanship within the warranty period stipulated above, at no cost to the owner of the Hyundai vehicle for parts or labor. Such defective parts which have been replaced will become the property of HMIL.

 

3. What is not covered

 

This warranty shall not apply to:

 

• Normal maintenance services other than cleaning and polishing, minor adjustments, engine tuning, oil/fluid changes, filters replenishment, fastener retightening, wheel balancing, wheel alignment and tyre rotation etc.

 

• Replacement of parts as a result of normal wear and tear such as spark plugs, belts, brake pads and linings, clutch disc/facing, filters, wiper blades, bulbs, fuses, etc.

 

• Damage or failure resulting from:

 

5.       Negligence of proper maintenance as required in this Owner's Manual and Service Booklet.
5.       Misuse, abuse, accident, theft, flooding or fire.
5.       Use of improper or insufficient fuel, fluids or lubricants.
5.       Use of parts other than Hyundai Genuine Parts.
6.       Any device and/or accessories not supplied by HMIL.
5.       Modifications, alterations, tampering or improper repair.
5.       Parts used in applications of which they were not designed or not approved by HMIL.
5.       Slight irregularities not recognized as affecting quality or function of the vehicle or parts, such as slight noise or vibrations, or items considered characteristic of the vehicle.
5.       Airborne "fallout", Industrial fall out, acid rain, hail and wind storms, or other Acts of God.
5.       Paint scratches, dents or similar paint or body damage.
5.       Action of road elements (sand, gravel, dust or road debris) which results in stone chipping of paint or glass.
5.       Incidental or consequential damages, including without limitation, loss of time, inconvenience, loss of use of vehicle or commercial loss.

 

Batteries, Audio Systems, Tyres and Tubes originally equipped on Hyundai vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by HMIL.

 

This warranty is the entire warranty given by HMIL and no dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to extend or enlarge this warranty and no dealer or its or his agent or employee is authorized to make any oral warranty on HMIL’s behalf.

 

HMIL reserves the right to make any change in design or make any improvement on the vehicle at any time without any obligation to make the same change on vehicles previously sold.

 

HMIL reserves the right for the final decision on all warranty matters.”

 

 

10.     It is important to note here that at various occasions, whenever the Complainant brought the vehicle for service to the Opposite Parties, no Complaint in respect of the corrosion was ever made. Interestingly, the problem of corrosion/ rusting was reported by the Complainant, for the first time, to the Opposite Party No.2 via e-mail crservice@hmail.net on 27.03.2014 (Annexure C-3). Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant on 10.08.2011. Hence, a period of 02 years & 08 months have lapsed, which is beyond the warranty period of 02 years, provided by the Opposite Party No.1 for the car in question. It is settled principle of law that the limitation period shall be reckoned from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ishwarlal Amarnai Vs. Hero Puch & Anr. III (2011) CPJ 132 NC, wherein it was categorically held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of purchase of the vehicle and not from the date of defect.  

 

11.     For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

 

12.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th July, 2015                                       

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                         Sd/-        

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

                                                                                          MEMBER