Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/536/2017

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ultimate Automobile Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	536 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	14.07.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	01.12.2017

 

 

 

 

Harpal Singh son of Sh.Jagraj Singh, resident of H.No.1281/2, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.       

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Ultimate Automobiles Private Limited, Plot No.154-155, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2]  Joshi Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., C-117, Industrial Focal Point, Phase VII, Mohali, SAS Nagar, through its Manager.

3]  Hyundai Motor India Ltd., 2^nd, 5^th and 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025, through its Manager. 

             ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

For complainant      : Complainant in person.

For OP(s)            : Sh.A.S.Khara, Adv. for OP-1.

  Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP-2.

  Sh.Amritpal, Adv. for OP-3.

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased Hyundai Creta SUV Car from Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Opposite Party NO.3, for an amount of Rs.12,58,641/- (Ann.C-1) on 21.4.2017. The complainant got the said car insured by spending Rs.32,438/-  (Ann.C-2) and registered vide Regd.No.CH-01BM-1830 by paying registration charges of Rs.68,959/- (Ann.C-3 & C-4).   It is averred that the complainant has adhered to all the instructions as mentioned in the service book cum warranty card.  It is also averred that in the first week of May, 2017 while driving the said vehicle, the complainant came to know about an unusual sound coming from the vehicle at the time of applying of breaks and the complainant apprehending any fault in the vehicle approached Opposite Party NO.1 on 4.5.3017 and took the vehicle to their workshop, but the complainant was asked to come after one week as the lift installed in the workshop to repair the vehicles are out of order (Ann.C-5).  Then, the complainant approached Opposite Party NO.2, an authorised service station of Opposite Party No.3, who after inspection & check, informed the complainant that the brake drums of the vehicle are required to be changed and they installed used drums in order to check the defect in the brakes, but to no avail.  It is further averred that Opposite Party No.3 could not detect the real cause of the unusual sound coming from the vehicle while applying the brakes.  It is stated that the engineers of Opposite Party NO.2 informed the complainant that they have recorded a video of the unusual sound and the same would be sent to the manufacturing unit of Opposite Party No.3 at Chennai and he was asked to visit after two weeks (Ann.C-6).  Thereafter, the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.3 on 15.6.2017 and the engineer of Opposite Party NO.3 got changed the brakes drums again, but still the defect in the vehicle could not be repaired and the complainant was asked to visit on the next day (Ann.C-7).  The complainant again visit on 16.6.2017 and it is stated that the Opposite Party NO.3 changed the brakes drum and leather pads of the brakes, but could not repair the defect (Ann.C-8).  It is submitted that the first defect in the vehicle was not yet repaired by the OPs, the complainant came to know about the leakage of water from the left front door when he was driving the vehicle in rain and when this was reported to Opposite Party NO.1 on 20.6.2017, they stated that they are not having required machinery to repair the same.  It is also submitted that the complainant being fed up from the attitude of OPs NO.1 & 2, took his vehicle to Raja Hyundai Motors, Mansa Road, Bathinda, an authorised service station of Opposite Party No.3, but they stated that there is some major defect in the car in question, which cannot be repaired and asked the complainant to approach Opposite Party NO.3 (Ann.C-9).  It is stated that the complainant also visited Opposite Party No.1 on 28.6.2017 and Opposite Party NO.2 on 29.6.2017 but they failed to detect the actual fault in the car.  It is also stated that the Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 could not repair the defect in the vehicle in question and it appears that the said defects are manufacturing defect, which cannot be repaired and they are making excuses on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that during the said period, the wipers and right sun wiser of the vehicle in question also stopped functioning and the same defect was also conveyed to the OPs, but they cannot even repair the said defects also by saying that they are not having the required articles.  It is submitted that the complainant purchased the brand new vehicle in question so that he can run it smoothly without any trouble as the earlier car, which the complainant was driving, was old one but the said car was running smoothly, but the vehicle in question, purchased by the complainant from the OPs is creating more trouble than the old car.  It is also submitted that the complainant has spent huge amount on the vehicle in question but the OPs are neither replacing the same nor returning the amount paid by the complainant, which is causing great hardship to the complainant and the conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by selling a defective vehicle projecting it to be defect free.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.  

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply and while admitting the sale and service of the vehicle in question, stated that the complainant never raised the issue of abnormal sound/noise in the brake system till 8.5.2017 on which date the switch assembly back of lamp was rectified.  It is stated that the issue regarding brake was raised to Opposite Party NO.2 where the service engineer of the manufacturer checked the vehicle and made the necessary rectification (Ann.C-7).  It is also stated that the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1 is not maintainable as neither the issue of brakes was raised nor the complainant has placed any documents regarding non-adhering of his grievance. It is further stated that the vehicle was taken to other dealers and they are in better position to reply. It is submitted that the HMIL (Hyundai Motors India Limited) and OP No.1 works on the principal to principal basis and has no role in stipulating the warranty policy condition. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has filed reply and while admitting the service/repair of the vehicle in question, stated that the vehicle in question is not suffering from any manufacturing defect as alleged. It is stated that the vehicle was reported on 8.5.2017 with the problem of wiper not working properly and rear side noise check while applying the brakes, the vehicle was thoroughly checked up by technical team of Opposite Party NO.2 and switch assembly backup lamp was changed without any charge under warranty.  It is stated that the vehicle was checked efficiently and effectively and was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is also stated that the vehicle was reported to the workshop of Opposite Party NO.2 on 15.6.2017 for running repairs and the problem reported was wheel noise to be checked and after changing of both rear brakes, the problem was rectified.  It is submitted that Opposite Party No.2 has not sold the vehicle and has performed repairs most efficiently and effectively on the instructions of Opposite Party NO.3 under the conditions of warranty.  Denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 

 

         The Opposite Party NO.3 has filed reply stating that the HMIL operates with all its dealers on a principal to principal basis and errors/omission, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer and the liability of HMIL/OP No.3 being manufacturer of Hyundai Cars is limited and extents to the warranty obligations alone.  It is stated that the car was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition as any brand new car would be. It is also stated that as per available information, when the vehicle was reported at Opposite Party No.2 for alleged issue of noise, the fuel tank was not available at the dealership, therefore the complainant was told that he will be informed when the same is made available and requested to bring the vehicle at that time for repair.  It is denied that the vehicle in question is having any manufacturing defect, as alleged.  It is submitted that whenever the complainant reported the vehicle at the dealership, the vehicle was taken care with utmost sincerity. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The complainant purchased Hyundai Creta SUV Car for Rs.12,58,641/- on 21.4.2017 from Ultimate Automobiles Private Limited, Chandigarh/OP No.1.  The complainant got his car insured on payment of Rs.32,438/- and also spent Rs.68,959/- for its registration with Registering Authority, Chandigarh and the car was registered vide Regd. No.CH-01-BM-1830. 

 

6]       Just after few days of the purchase of the car, the car in question developed defect in its braking system in May, 2017. While driving the car, the complainant faced unusual sound from the vehicle while applying its brakes. The matter was brought to the notice of the OPs.  The OPs in their Service Centre tried their best to find the fault and rectify the same, but in vain.  During the pendency of this complaint, the Service Manager of Opposite Party NO.2 Mr.Jaspal Singh appeared on 6.10.2017 before this Forum and assured to rectify the fault in the vehicle within 15 days. Accordingly, the complainant was directed to handover the Car to Opposite Party NO.3 at their workshop. 

 

7]       On 07.11.2017, the Opposite Party NO.3 submitted its Inspection Report dated 30.10.17-01.11.17 before this Forum stating that the Technical Team of Hyundai especially came from Chennai to Chandigarh to repair the car of the complainant, but the defect could not be detected due to unavailability of specialized tools, which are available only at INQC, Faridabad.  It has also been stated by the OPs that they require the car at Faridabad for examination at least for 12 days to which the complainant forcibly resisted such move.  The complainant is a Teacher in School and reportedly has to waste his 45 working days to get his vehicle in proper roadworthy condition, after repair from OPs in their workshop, but all in vain.

 

8]       The OPs, admittedly, despite best efforts could not detect the fault and expressed their inability to repair the Car at Chandigarh.  The complainant has spent Rs.12,58,641/- besides registration and insurance charges, but despite spending such a huge amount, he could not use his car fearlessly. An apprehension of any sudden collapse of the vehicle in mid of the traffic always lurk on the mind of the complainant. There is certainly a major manufacturing defect in the Chassis as well as braking system of the car in question, which causes unusual sound in the car while putting its brakes.  The OPs cannot be allowed to play with the life & safety of its customer by selling such a defective vehicle in the market.  The braking system of a vehicle is backbone of the vehicle itself and the safety of the passengers while travelling in such vehicle cannot be compromised and left to the mercy of such car manufacturers. The Opposite Parties have been given ample opportunity & time to get the car repair, but they could not and expressed their inability to do so.  As such, it is held that the Car in question sold to the complainant is having manufacturing defect. 

 

9]       Keeping into consideration the peculiar facts & circumstances as emerged in the present complaint, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs has been proved. As such, the present complaint is allowed with directions to OPs No.1 & 3 (Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Hyundai Motors India Ltd.) to jointly & severally pay back an amount of Rs.13,60,038/- (invoice price of Rs.12,58,641/-+ insurance charges of Rs.32,438/- + registration charges of Rs.68,959/-) to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of sale i.e. 21.4.2017 till realisation with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

         In case the OP No.1 & 3 failed to comply with the order within the stipulated period, then they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

 

10]      The complainant, after the receipt of above awarded amount, shall handover the vehicle in question to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 along with its documents and shall also complete all the necessary requisite documentation formalities, as per their need.  

 

11]      However, the complaint qua OP No.2 (Joshi Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd.) stands dismissed.

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

Announced

1^st December, 2017                                                      

                                                                             Sd/=-          

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/=-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER