CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 64/11
Wednesday the 1st day of October, 2014
Petitioner : Jose T.Thomas,
Thayilaya Medumparambil House,
Kumarakom PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. Avaneesh V.N)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Irrugattukotta, NH4,Sri Perumbadur
Taluk, Kanchipuram Dist.
Tamil Nadu-602 105
(Adv.Nishana Venkitesh)
2) Popular Motor Word Pvt.Ltd
Rep.by its Branch Manager,
Thadathil Building, 9/548 C,
Near Municipal Park, Sastri Road,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Royce Chirayil)
3) M.G.F Hyundai, Rep.by its
Branch Manager,
Near Pulimood Jn,Kottayam-1
(Adv.K. Anilkumar)
ORDER
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 08/03/11 is as follows:
He had contacted the 2nd opposite party for purchased a Hyundai(Santro) car chase No, MALAA51HR9M462453j And engine No.G4HG9M862653 for an amount of Rs.3,52,651/- on 5-10-2009. The vehicle was registered as KL05-AA-2699. From the initial time itself, the vehicle showed some troubles. There was sound from the rear suspension rattling sound from rear portion and the matter was informed to the 2nd opposite party at the time of 1st service. After the service they told the complainant that the problems were cured. After that the vehicle showed more problems such as sound from steering, part low mileage, faulty door lock etc. Again vehicle was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party. They told that problems were cured. After that the vehicle showed problems in regular intervals and 2nd opposite party could not rectify the defects. The shock absorber of the car is not in proper condition. The vapours light and wiper got damaged. Water weapons and mist found in the head light glass. The matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party and they replaced the light with an old light instead of new one. The complainant was sent a letter on 10/8/2010 and got reply from 1st opposite party. They advised the complainant to contact the 3rd opposite party. Accordingly he contacted the 3rd opposite party, but the problem was not at all rectified. Subsequently the door portion was painted by the 3rd opposite party. After few days, some sort of bubbles have seen on the painting portion. That was happened due to the inferior quality of painting. Also several other complaints occurred due to manufacturing defect and that is still existing. The complainant entrusted the vehicle for rectifying the defects to the 3rd opposite party 3 times. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version.
The 1st opposite party filed version contending as follows. The complaint is baseless and without any merits. The complaint is absolutely no cause of action against the 1st opposite party. On the basis of information available, a brand new Hyundai Santro car delivered to the complainant by the opposite party 2 on
5-10-2009 in perfect running condition without any technical or manufacturing defect whatsoever. The complainant however, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in four(4) accidents of the car within a period of two(2) years of its purchase. The complainant’s car reported for first accidental repair on 17-3-2010. Thereafter the said car reported for accidental repairs on
29-4-2010, 3-5-2010 and 8-2-2011. The complainant has illegally and with malafide intentions concealed this material fact from this Forum and filed the complaint seeking refund of the price of the car/replacement of the vehicle after using the same for almost 2 years, covering a distance of about8542Kms. There was absolutely no manufacturing defect in the car as alleged. After
8-2-2011,vehicle has not been reported for any problem which shows that complainant was using the car in perfect condition. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The version filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows. The vehicle in disputes was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party for its free services. Certain minor complaints were brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party by the complainant at the time of entrusting the vehicle and the same were satisfactorily repaired or rectified by the 2nd opposite party. Statement that after the service the vehicle showed problems of sound from the steering, low mileage, faulty door lock etc are not correct. The vehicle was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for the 2nd time after its use for about 3 months for doing Teflon coating and the same was done on 17/3/2010. The aforesaid complaints were not raised by the complainant at the time of inspection on 17/3/2010. The 2nd opposite party did the work with utmost satisfaction of the customer. The complainant never made any complaint regarding the working of shock absorber as alleged in the complaint. Subsequently a fog lamp was also provided to the complainant on 8/5/2010. Since the complainant raised complaints regarding the low mileage,, mileage test was also conducted on 21/4/2010 in the presents of the complainant. The vehicle showed 14 KM/litter with A/C during high traffic conditions with driver and one passenger. Hence the allegation of low mileage was not correct. The vehicle is not having any manufacturing defects. The defects noticed by the 2nd opposite party may occur due to the improper user of the vehicle. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The version filed by the 3rd opposite party is as follows. The complaint against 3rd opposite party is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The 3rd opposite party was not the manufacturer or the seller of the car. Complainant had purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party, being an authorized service centre of M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd at Kottayam, has properly attended all the service requirements of the complainant’s vehicle to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. Hence 3rd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings and accordingly 3rd opposite party may be deleted from the party array. The complainant himself has given a satisfaction letter dtd 30-10-10 clearly stating that the work carried out by the 3rd opposite party is to his utmost satisfaction. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 toA7. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext.B1 to B4. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext.B5 to B8. The commissioner examined as PW1 and commission report was marked as Ext.C1 and C1(a)
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, versions, documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the car became defective even after repeated repairs made by the opposite parties. According to him the car having manufacturing defects and the same may be replaced or refund the price of it. The stands taken by the opposite parties that the vehicle having no manufacturing defects. According to the opposite parties the alleged defects was occurred due to the rash driving of the vehicle and not due to any manufacturing defects. The commissioner examined as PW1 and the report filed by the commissioner was marked as C1 and C1(a). From the deposition of PW1 and from C1 report it cannot be seen that the vehicle having any manufacturing defects. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the vehicle in dispute is not having manufacturing defects. It can be seen from the C1 expert commissioner’s report the defects in the vehicle is curable. The complainant had sustained some inconveniences due to the negligent act of the opposite parties in curing the defects in the vehicle with proper conditions. According to the complainant the alleged defects was not properly cured by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in time as and when the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repairs. The opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows:
We direct the opposite parties to cure the defects pointed out in the C1 report within one month as free of costs.In default the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for inconveniences.
We direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant.
The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of complainant
Ext.A1-photocopy of retail invoice
Ext.A2- photocopy of RC book
Ext.A3-copy of email letter dtd 5/10/10
Ext.A4-copy of email letter dtd 26/10/10
Ext.A5- copy of email letter dtd 4-10-10
Ext.A6-copy of email letter dtd 11/8/10
Ext.A7-series- photocopy of repairing order forms(9 Nos)
Documents of opposite parties
Ext.B1Series -Copies of accidental repair history cards
dtd 17/3/10,29/4/10 , 3/5/10 and 8/2/11(4Nos.)
Ext.B2-photocopy of warranty policy
Ext.B3-copy of vehicle repair history card dtd 7-12-09
Ext.B4-copy of vehicle repair history card dtd 30-08-10
Ext.B5-Repair order dtd 21-4-10
Ext.B6-Repair order dtd 8/5/10
Ext.B7-Repair order dtd 24/5/10
Ext.B8-Repair order dtd 6/8/10
Ext.C1-commission report
Ext.C1series photographs(5 Nos)
PW1-Chinnakaruppaswamy
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
