West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2013/67

MR. ARIJIT RAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, - Opp.Party(s)

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. :67/S/2013.          DATED : 10.09.2015.                 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SRI PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                                    : MR. ARIJIT RAY @ MR. RAY ARIJIT

  MANISH,

                                                  S/O Late Manish Kumar Ray,

                                                  R/O 10/5, Akshay Tara Apartment,

                                                  Sevoke Road, Siliguri – 734 001,

                                                  P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling. 

                                                           

 

O.Ps.           1.                           : THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

 Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt.

 Ltd., 

Survey No.5/2 & 5/3, Opposite    

Hightech City Railway Station,

                                                 RR District Hyderabad – 500 084.

 

                                                2.                           : THE MANAGER,

 Kothari Hyundai, Mohit Paradise,                    

 Lullanagar, Bibrewadi Road,

 Pune – 411 040.

 

3.              : THE MANAGER,

 Durga Hyundai Service Centre, Dagapur,

 Siliguri, P.S.- Matigara, Sub-Division

 Siliguri, Dist.- Dajreeling.             

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Chinmoy Chakraborty, Advocate.

FOR THE OPs                                  :

 

 

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

 

The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that he purchased a Hyundai 20 ASTA  AVN (Petrol version) vehicle on 29^th March, 2011 from the authorized dealer of OP No.1 i.e., OP No.2.  The price was Rs.6,43,129/-, Registered No.MH-12-GR-9013, Registration Fee of Rs.45,019/- was given, insurance premium was Rs.30,768/-.  After some day of purchase some manufacturing defect was found.  Complaint was lodged to OPs.  The vehicle was taken to OP No.2, but defect was not solved.  Gradually vehicle showed more problems in locking of the power steering, and brakes.  Due to such defect of steering and locking and brake, it is unsaved to use the vehicle.  The AVN system is also defective.  Defect of electrical interference was also reported, but the final defect was not detected.  The allegation is further that the AVN system with the normal to deem music system and other problem becomes so grave that the complainant was not able to ply the vehicle peacefully.  In spite of repeated request the OP No.1 & 2 did not take any step for rectification of defect.  The cause of action arose on 29.03.2011.  Hence, the complaint with a prayer for relief as shown in the prayer column.

This case had been heard ex-parte as per order dated 09.10.2013 against OP Nos.1 & 2.

Initially OP No.3 appeared and filed written version on 11.09.2013 but latter on OP No.3 did not come.

 

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

 

It is stated by OP No.3 that they have given service to the complainant as per contract of the OP No.3 and OP No.1.  As such OP No.3 is in no way liable.

It is further case of the OP No.3 that inherent manufacturing defect or not is required to be ascertained by automobile engineer, and unless and until the vehicle is examined by automobile engineer, it cannot be determined whether the vehicle has been suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect.  As such OP No.3 prays passing for dismissal. 

OP No.1 & OP No.2 did not file any written version against the complainant.  As such the case has been heard ex-parte. 

 

Point for decision

 

1.       Whether there is any manufacturing defect.

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

 

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Tax invoice in the name of complainant for purchase of the said vehicle.

2.       Debit Note in the name of complainant for R.T.O., Insurance and extended warranty change in respect of the said vehicle.

3.       Certificate of Registration.

4.       Tax Invoice No.446 dated 29.03.2011.

5.       Certificate of extended warranty.

6.       Grievances Lodge to due OP’ through several e-mails on several dates.

7.       Repair order and cash invoice of Durga Hyundai. 

8.       Legal notice.

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief. 

Complainant has stated in para-6 that AVN system was defective and he realised that the state-of-art AVN system which made this vehicle the costliest of the i20 variants had a manufacturing defect.  He found

 

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

 

 

that system continually stopped and restarted.  The matter was reported to OP No.2 on 05.04.2011, but after repeated visit the issue remain unresolved.  Thereafter many problems arose with the vehicle with brakes and looking glass.  The said problem was also reported to the OP No.2 but failed.  He stated in para-8 some senior technicians from the R & D Department of the OP were also deployed to look into the matter, but still the issue remain unresolved. 

The document also shows that this complainant purchased the vehicle with adequate money, but later on he faced problem as per his evidence-in-chief and it is also true that the complainant knocked the door of the dealer OP No.1, but the OP No.1 & 2 did not show any sympathy to the innocent consumer like the complainant.  The conduct of the OP No.1 & 2 reflected within the periphery of the record that they did not care the authority of law.  They did not dare to contest the complainant to establish their well wish to the consumer.  The complainant has approached this Forum on 22.05.2013.  The vehicle was purchased on 29.03.2011.  Since the purchase date he has knocked before the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and finally being refused the complainant had approached before the Forum for relief.

The evidence and documents of the complainant go unchallenged during the entire period as OP did not contest the case.  Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the complainant’s case.   

So, after deep deliberation, over the complainant’s case and all documents, Registration Certificate and other documents, mainly copy of the e-mail sent and received by the complainant, service receipt Sl. No.9 & 10, it is air like clear that the complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle and the vehicle had defects, the OP did not try to remove the defects.  As such OP No.1 & 2 are responsible for the defect in the said vehicle.  They are liable for not taking any steps to remove the defects.

Contd......P/4

-:4:-

 

 

 

This Forum is of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get compensation as per para 22 of the complaint vide a, b, c & d.                          

Accordingly, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.67/S/2013 is allowed ex-parte against OP No.1 & OP No.2 and the case dismissed ex-parte against OP No.3.

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.7,19,916/- for refund of the vehicle or entitled to get defectless new vehicle of same model along with registration/insurance/extended warranty. 

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost and legal expenses.

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony. 

The complainant is further entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of appearance of the OP till full payment.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to replace the old vehicle by a new one of the same model or refund Rs.7,19,916/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation cost and legal expenses.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.

 

Contd......P/5

-:5:-

 

 

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant from the date of appearance of the OP till full payment.

Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till realization.

In case of default of payment as ordered above, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

-Member-                     -Member-                          -President-