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

======

Dr.Nazum Luthra D/o Sh.Arun Rai Luthra, Resident of H.No.3517, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     Ultimate Automobiles Private Limited, Authorised Dealer, Hyundai Motors, through its Manager/ Authorised Signatory, Plot No.154-155, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

2]     Manufacturer Hyundai Motor India Limited, through its Director/Authorised Signatory, Plot NO.5, 5th & 6th floor, Corporate-1, Baani Building, Commercial Centre Josola, New Delhi.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.P.D.GOEL                                     PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

                DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:       Complainant in person.

Sh.Aftab Singh Khara, Counsel for OP No.1

Ms.Simran Singh, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

                The complainant’s  i10 Hyundai Car, purchased from OP No.1, started giving problem from the very beginning.  It started to give jerk with a loud noise, as such remained unable to take the speed while covering a few meters after the start. The problem was brought to the notice of OP-1, but the problem still persisted even after the service. Later on, it was found that two of the sensors were not working due to which the fan of the car ceased. The sensor was changed and the car remained with OP-1 for a considerable time.  Thereafter, the car started giving louder noise with loud intensity and the fuel emission indicator showed mal-functioning. Further, a fault, with ECM has been also noticed in the car.  These defects persisted from the very beginning. It is submitted that though OP-1 gave services (Ann.A-1 to A-9), but it did not replace the ECM, which is defective from its inception, saying that this component has been sent to the Company and as & when it will be received, the same shall be changed from the car, but till day, it was not done. The OPs just want to lapse the warranty period available to the complainant. The complainant sent many representations (Ann.A-10 to A-17) and OPs replied the same, but did not take any action thereon.  Besides this, a legal notice (Ann.A-18) was also sent, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.        

2]             OP-1 filed reply stating therein that it had duly serviced the vehicle of the complainant to her entire satisfaction as is clear from Job Cards (Annexure R-1/1 colly.). It is submitted that the necessary parts, required to be replaced for effective running of the vehicle, was done with due diligence, as per Company’s Warranty Policy (HMIL) (Ann.R-1/2). It is also submitted that answering OP is always ready to rectify the problem, if any, and also to change the ECM component, if defective.  It is averred that the vehicle was checked to the entire satisfaction of complainant within warranty period and as such, the complainant signed the satisfactory note. Moreover, the parts were changed for free of cost, without charging anything from the complainant.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

                OP No.2 filed the reply, wherein, it has been denied that after day of the purchase of the car, it started giving trouble. The complainant’s car was inspected in the month of June and August and no problem was found in it. It has been pleaded that whenever the complainant reported his vehicle at the authorized service station of the replying OP, prompt and efficient services were provided to her and there was no manufacturing defect in the said car. The OP No.2 deals with all its dealers on principal to principal basis and the concerned dealer is solely responsible for error, if any, at the time of retail sales/services/repairs of the car. It has been further pleaded that the points of servicing/repairs are between the OP No.1 and the complainant. As per the records available, the complainant had not reported that the said car at its authorized service centre of OP No.2 with the problem of fuel indicator mal-functioning. The car of the complainant was thoroughly inspected in the month of May, June and August, 2011 and no problem was found in it. The OP No.1 also written letters/emails to the complainant requesting her to bring the car for necessary inspection and replacement of any parts, if required but she failed to come. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been made.  

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record. 

5]             The case of the complaint is that her car, purchased from OP-1, is giving frequent problems on one account or the other, from the day of its purchase, therefore, it is suffering from manufacturing defect. 

6]             On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for OP NO.1 contended that the vehicle in question was serviced & repaired from time to time, whenever it was brought to the their workshop, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  He also contended that the car is not at all suffering from any manufacturing defect, as alleged by the complainant.  

7]             We have gone through the Repair Orders & Bills placed on record by the complainant herself as Ann.A-I to A-7 showing the visits as well as work done on her car by OP No.1 from time to time.  A bare perusal of all these documents reveals that every time the minor repairs or service have been carried out on the vehicle in question under warranty.  However, these repair orders & bills did not show or prove that any major repair was ever carried out by the OPs on the vehicle in question.  More so, it is not the case of the complainant herself that the OPs have ever carried out major repairs to rectify the alleged defects in the car in question.

8]             The onus to prove any manufacturing/ inherent defect in the car in question was totally on the complainant.  But, she has not been able to prove the same, by placing on record any expert evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any expert evidence, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect. Reliance has been placed on Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr., I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).

9]             Moreover, the complainant herself has signed the satisfactory notes given in the job cards (Ann.R-1/1 colly., which reads as under:-

“I hereby certify that the repairs have been carried out to my entire satisfaction.  I have also received the salvage, if any and also checked and found correct all accessories fitted in my car.” 

10]           Therefore, she cannot now say that the repairs were not carried out to her satisfaction.  It further proves that the OP-1 have attended the complainant and done the necessary repairs. 

11]           However, inspite of all that, the OP No.1 had made an offer that it is still ready to rectify the problems, if any, as well as change the ECM component, of the car if the complainant brings the vehicle to their workshop.

12]           In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as cited case law, we deem it appropriate to direct to the complainant to take her car to the workshop of OP No.1 whereupon OP No.1 shall rectify the defects, if any, in the car as well as change its ECM Component, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, free of cost, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the car. We order accordingly.  However, there is no order as to compensation or cost.  The complaint stands disposed of as such in above terms. 

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.