Delhi

North East

CC/405/2022

Ashwani Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vice President/General Manager/Customer Relation Manager. Lamba Automotive Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 405/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ashwani Kumar S/o  Sh. Rajender Kumar R/o X-2/25, B, St. No. 5.1/2 Brahmpuri, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.                 2.	Vice President / General Manager/ Customer Relation Manager/ Advisor (service), Lamba Automotive Pvt. N1230 Add:- B 24, Pocket B, Okhla Phase I, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Delhi 110020   Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Through MD/Director Add:- 2nd Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building) Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi , Delhi 110025	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:   JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:   DATE OF ORDER:

02.11.22 30.08.24 02.12.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that Complainant had visited Opposite Party No.1 service centre for service of his vehicle bearing no. DL11CB1229 on 10.06.22 and was allegedly advised that there was some smoke and engine issue in his vehicle. When Complainant asked advisor of Opposite Party No.1 the exact amount to remove all issues in his vehicle, he was told Rs. 80,000/- and vehicle delivery within week from date of handover of vehicle i.e. 10.06.22. On 02.07.22, Opposite Party No.1 delivered vehicle of Complainant at his house and bill of Rs. 1,32,000/-  dated 30.06.22 and gave assurance about trouble free performance and six months and 10,000 km warranty/guarantee and second bill Rs. 2,468/- dated 14.07.22. The Complainant stated that said issue in vehicle was not resolved by Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, Complainant approached and reported to Opposite Parties many times took the Complainant’s vehicle but still the issues could not be resolved in his vehicle. Thereafter, Complainant repeatedly called the complaint cell but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the bill amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- and Rs. 2,468/- with interest @ 15 % p.a. The Complainant further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 26.04.23.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2 (Hyundai Motor India Ltd)

The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.2 has objected to the complaint that there is no allegation against Opposite Party No.2 and hence there is no cause of action in the present complaint qua Opposite Party No.2. It is also submitted that as per the dealership agreement between Opposite Party No.1, the dealer and Opposite Party No.2 i.e. manufacturer , relationship is one of the principal to principal basis and not as a principal to agent, hence the Opposite Party No.2 could not be held liable for acts & omissions of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 further submitted Complainant was informed on his 1st visit that the engine oil of the said vehicle would be replaced initially at 1,000/- kms post engine overhaul, however, despite the knowledge of the said fact the Complainant visited the workshop of the Opposite Party No.1 on 14.07.2022 at a mileage of 49,021 Kms for replacing the engine oil and oil filter. The service team on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 duly replaced the engine oil and oil filter and issued an invoice of INR 2,468/- to the Complainant. The Complainant had failed to show any deficiency of services against the Opposite Party No.2. It is further submitted that the allegations in the complaint are purely related to repairing of the said vehicle which is not covered under the warranty policy of the Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that service/accidental repairs is purely inter-se the Complainant, the dealer herein the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 has no role to play in the same, therefore the complaint ought to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party No.2.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Sh. Hemant Makkar, Sr. Manager of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 has been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2. We have perused the file including the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.
7. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1, the dealer had not carried out the repair work properly and allegedly a hefty amount was demanded for carrying out repair work. Despite giving assurance about trouble free performance for six months and 10,000 km warranty/guarantee, second bill of Rs. 2,468/- dated 14.07.22 was raised. The Complainant stated that said issue in vehicle was not resolved by Opposite Party No.1.
8. Opposite Party No.1, the dealer has not contested the case while Opposite Party No.2 the manufacturer has contended that there is no allegation against them. Opposite Party No.2 has further contended that the relationship of Opposite Party No.2 with the Opposite Party No.1 is one of the principal to principal basis and not as a principal to agent, hence the Opposite Party No.2 could not be held liable for acts & omissions of Opposite Party No.1.
9.  The Complainant has filed copy of two invoices issued by Opposite Party No.1 and copy of chat on whatsapp application in support of his case. The grievance of Complainant is that Opposite Party No.1, the dealer, had not carried out the repair work properly and allegedly a hefty amount was demanded for carrying out repair work. Despite giving assurance about trouble free performance for six months and 10,000 km warranty/guarantee, second bill of Rs. 2,468/- dated 14.07.22 was raised. Perusal of the material on record shows that at first the repairs were done at the mileage of 47,669 kms and invoice dated 06.06.22 was issued. It is also clear from the available record that at that time engine overhauling and other detailed services were carried out and amount was charged for the same. The Complainant has no basis for allegation that the amount was hefty for the repairs carried out, hence, same cannot be accepted. It is also clear from the second invoice dated 14.07.22 that no repair work was done and only engine oil and oil filter was replaced. Even otherwise, the contention is liable to be rejected because as per Complainant’s own case, the assurance for trouble free performance was given for six months or 10,000 km warranty/guarantee and said second invoice was issued at a mileage of 49,021 Kms which exceeds 10,000 km. The Complainant has also alleged that he faced many issues in the vehicle afterwards but said issues in vehicle were not resolved by Opposite Party No.1. Since the Complainant has not led any cogent evidence such as expert report inspecting the vehicle etc. in support of the said allegation, hence, same cannot be believed. The Complainant has filed merely chats taken place between him and Opposite Party No.1 complaining the defects and Opposite Party No.1 has denied those defects. Hence, the allegation cannot be believed for want of proper proof.
10.  In view of above facts and discussion, we do not see any merits in the complaint, hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Order announced on 02.12.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President