DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 10/03/2016

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 156/2016

COMPLAINANT

Dr. Shibu G., S/o. George, Trinity Castle, 10C, NH Bypass Junction, Edappally, Kochi 24.

(Rep. by Adv. Sujithkumar T.U., PRA41, Near Perunninakulam Temple, Irimpanam P.O., Ernakulam 682309)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. The Managing Director, Hyundai Motos India Ltd., Sundaram Road, Near Sun Plaza, Thiyagaraja Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

(Rep. by Adv. P. Fazil, Jithil Paul Varghese & Ann Mary Francis)

2. The Manager, Vee Tee Jay Motors Pvt. Ltd., Maradu P.O., Kochi.

(Rep. by Adv. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, KMS Wakf Complex, Room No. 1, Providence Road, Providence Junction, Kochi 682018)

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

This complaint is filed by Dr. Shibu G. against the Managing Director, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. The complainant states that he has purchased a Hyundai Verna (CRDiSX) car from 2^nd opposite party on 07/09/2012 on payment of Rs.10,88,971/-. An amount of Rs.24,500/- was also paid as insurance premium. An extended warranty upto 3 years was issued by the 2^nd opposite party. Eventhough the vehicle was running smoothly at the beginning, after that it was noticed that rust has been spreading in various parts of the vehicle. This was duly informed to the 2^nd opposite party. The rusting of metal began to spread all over the body of the vehicle which was a newly purchased vehicle so that the matter was seriously informed to opposite parties’ office in writing several times and through e-mails. Eventhough the Manager of 2^nd opposite party took up the case and agreed that it would be repaired soon, nothing was done from their side. After repeated requests through telephone as well as e-mail communications for a long period of more than one year, finally the 2^nd opposite party and the staff of 1^st opposite party inspected the vehicle and was convinced of the matter that it was due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle that the rust has been spreading to all over the body of the newly purchased vehicle. Hence the 2^nd opposite party got the vehicle duly repainted with warranty at free of cost on 23/07/2015, while it was entrusted on 24/06/2015 for repair. It took one month to repair the vehicle. An amount of zero bill was issued by the opposite party because they were duly convinced that it was due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle and provided warranty for the work done. Unfortunately after one week of the date of re-painting and repair of the vehicle it was noticed that the same defect is existing on the vehicle. Eventhough several communications were made, the opposite party didn’t take up any step to repair the defect of the vehicle till now. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for issuing direction to the opposite party to replace the vehicle with other reliefs.

Upon notice 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties entered into appearance and filed their version. For the sake of convenience the contentions of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are furnished together as follows:

The alleged problems of rusting on the exterior of car, is not a defect much less than the manufacturing defect of the car. It is submitted that rusting may be caused due to atmospheric conditions such as road salts, dust control chemicals, ocean air and industrial pollution in high corrosion areas, it is absolutely necessary to keep the vehicle clean and free from mud accumulations and accumulation of road salts, industrial pollution etc. it is further submitted that rusting on the exterior of car may have occurred on account of paint scratch, damage and other reasons, which may be attributable to a number of external factors such as:

1. Removal of paid and protective coatings from the exterior and the underside of the car resulting from minor/major accidents or abrasion by stones and gravel may lead to corrosion. Bare metal corrodes quickly and may develop into major repair expenses. The car has to be, therefore, inspected frequently for chips or scratches and have to be repaired right away to prevent corrosion of the metal underneath.
2. Moisture trapped in the body cavities also lead to corrosion. Dirt and road salt that collects in the hollows on the underside of the car stays damps, promoting corrosion in that area. Cleaning out the drains holes in the bottom of the doors and the body is a must after washing.
3. Accumulation of road salt, dirt, bird dropping road oil and tar, moisture or chemicals from industrial chimneys may damage vehicle finish, if left on painted surface and especially in the hard to reach areas of the vehicle under body or the frame.
4. Various environmental conditions may also accelerate corrosion.
5. Road salt, dust control chemicals, sea air or industrial pollution will all accelerate the corrosion of metal.
6. High humidity will increase the rate of corrosion particularly when the temperature range is just above the freezing point.
7. Moisture in certain areas of a vehicle for an extended period of time may promote corrosion eventhough other body sections may be completely dry.
8. High temperature causes an accelerated rate of corrosion to parts of the vehicle, which are not well ventilated to permit quick drying.

Things being so, the averment that the rusting is due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle is totally incorrect and baseless. Further the normal warranty for the vehicle is for two years. It is respectfully submitted that there was an offer provided by the company for the said band of vehicle ie. an extended warranty of one year after the basic warranty. Eventhough the alleged complaints were attended and rectified by the 2^nd opposite party free of cost. Moreover services mentioned in the complaint was provided to the customer as a sign of gesture of goodwill of the company, never asserts an admission of manufacturing defect of the said vehicle. Extended warranty period is an offer provided by the company for a specific band of vehicle for a specific period, which is an indication of benevolence of the company towards the customer. Rusting of a vehicle depends on certain other aspects including weather salinity etc. which are not covered under the extended warranty.

The complainant had produced 5 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A5. Opposite parties filed 2 documents and which are marked as Exbt. B1 and B2.

From the above documents and also from the facts submitted by complainant and opposite party the Commission has to verify the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

The allegation of the complainant is that eventhough the vehicle was moving smoothly for a few months it is noticed that the rust was spreading on various parts of body of the vehicle. In fact the rust has spread all over the body of the newly purchased vehicle within a short span of time. The complainant alleges that it is due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle that just became rusted within such a short time which was convinced by the opposite party and rusting is continuing even after the repair of the vehicle. The same defect has been occurred again and again. The matter was reported to the opposite parties and they had not given a permanent cure for the same. The argument of the opposite parties is that the subject matter of the extended warranty policy marked as Exbt. B1 and B2 has clearly mentioned that “body, paint, glass, interior/exterior trim, exhaust systems and normal wear and tear of any other component” are not covered under the said warranty/extended warranty policy. Eventhough the alleged complaints were not covered under the extended warranty the said complaints were attended and rectified by the 2^nd opposite party free of cost as a gesture of goodwill of the company. It is pertinent to note that the repairing done within the warranty period offered by the company never asserts an admission of manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged in the complaint.

The Commission upon going through the documents filed by both sides and also on making a thorough perusal of the report of Expert Commission and upon going through the deposition made in box by him has come to the following inference.

The complainant had purchased the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party on 07/09/2012 after making payment of Rs.10,88,971/-. It can be seen that the car has got repainted within the warranty period on itself ie. 23/07/2015 that is less than a period of three years due to the alleged defect of rusting. Eventhough no scientific methods were adopted for finding out the real cause of rusting, it can be seen that the vehicle had rusting on many of its parts. The liability and responsibility of which had not been proved due to any of the action of the complaint. The rusting of a vehicle within such a short period of time according to the report of expert commission is further emphasised from the deposition furnished by him which is as follows:

(ചോ) 20 വർഷം പരിചയം കൊണ്ട് വണ്ടിയുടെ Mechanical, Automobile കാര്യങ്ങളെ കുറിച്ച് പരിചയമുണ്ട്? (ഉ) ഉണ്ട്. 20 വർഷത്തിനിടയിൽ എല്ലാ തരത്തിലുള്ള വണ്ടികളും അറിയാം. 26/04/2017 ൽ ഈ കേസിലെ പരാതിക്കാരൻറെ വണ്ടി പരിശോധിച്ച് തയ്യാറാക്കിയ റിപ്പോർട്ടാണിത്. ഈ റിപ്പോർട്ടിൽ ഒമ്പതോളം സ്ഥലത്ത് rust ഉള്ളതായി report ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഞാൻ നേരിട്ട് കണ്ടിട്ടാണ് റിപ്പോർട്ട് എഴുതിയത്. C1 ലെ ഒപ്പ് എൻറേതാണ്. 20 വർഷത്തെ അനുഭവത്തിൽ ഇതുപോലെ തുരുമ്പെടുത്ത വണ്ടി ആദ്യം കാണുകയാണ്.

At this stage, the opposite party stated that they are not liable to make any compensation and produced Exbt. B1 and B2 in which it is stated that “body, glass, interior/exterior trim, exhaust systems and normal wear and tear of the components are excluded from warranty coverage and hence they are not liable to compensate the loss if any sustained to the complainant.

Commission upon making a thorough probe into all the above statements reached into the inference rusting of the whole part of the vehicle within such a short period of time compare to the reasoning expected life of a vehicle is nothing but deficiency and non-curing of such a defect from relapse amounts to unfair trade practice and therefore the above two charges are levelled against opposite parties and thereby finding merit on the part of the complainant. Thus Point No. (1) proved in favour of the complainant and hence the following orders are issued.

1. The opposite party is directed to repaint the vehicle of the complainant   in par with factory painting of a new car with a warranty of two years for such paintings.
2. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.

Under any circumstances if the direction (1) above shall not be complied with by the opposite parties, the amount of Rs.50,000/- of compensation as per direction (2) above shall be Rs.1,00,000/-

3. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied with by the opposite parties No. 1&2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27^th day of November, 2024.

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of retail invoice dated 31/08/2012 issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Exbt. A2:    Copy of retail invoice dated 23/07/2018 issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Exbt. A3:    Copies of e-mail communications

Exbt. A4:    Copy of lawyer notice issued to the 1^st opposite party

Exbt. A5:    Copy of reply notice issued by the 1^st opposite party

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Exbt. B1:    Copy of Repair order dated 01/04/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Exbt. B2:    Copy of Satisfaction note

Deposition:

Exbt. C1:    Commission Report

PW1:          Dr. Shibu G. (Complainant)

DW1:                   Baby Joseph (Expert Commissioner)

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 156/2016

Order Date: 27 /11/2024