Complaint Case No.306/2008

Date of Institution 8-12-2008

Date of Decision 11-11-2009


Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma c/o H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd B.O. BSL Colony Purana Bazar, Mandi Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant

V/S

1. Hyundai Motors India Ltd Marketing and Sales Regional Office A-30 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Mathura Road New Delhi. 110044

2. Managing Director ,Sant Hyundai, NH 20.1 KM Stone Mataur- Palampur Road Ghurkharia Kangra, H.P.

…..Opposite parties

For the complainant Sh.C.L.Awasthi Advocate

For the opposite party No.1 Sh. Dinesh Sharma Advocate

vice Sh.Abhisek Pal, Advocate

For the opposite party No.2 Sh. Pankaj Chandel Advocate


Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . The case of the complainant is that he is working in H.P. State Co-operative Bank, BSL Colony Sundernagar. The complainant averred that he purchased a car bearing chassis No.288832 engine No.423457 Model 2008 from the opposite party No.2 and at the time of purchasing the car the company has launched a scheme for H.P. State Government Employees and also Exchange offer for old car. That the complainant was covered under both the above conditions and sold his old car and submitted the registration certificate to the opposite parties. The complainant further averred that the at the time of delivery of the car , the opposite parties have assured regarding Special Navratra Offers to the complainant and in lieu thereof they would pay Rs.14000/- to him within 45 days from the date of delivery of the new car . The complainant averred that the delivery of the car was given at Sundernagar by obtaining the signatures on blank papers by saying that these are necessary formalities for the above said offer of the vehicle and till date the opposite parties have not paid any amount to the complainant despite telephone and personal contact of the complainant . The complainant averred that the opposite parties were served with legal notice dated 4-11-2008 and the same was not responded . With these allegations, the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.14,000/- alongwith interest . Apart from this litigation expenses have also been claimed.



2 The opposite party No.1 has filed reply and pleaded that the complaint is based on wrong and misleading facts and completely devoid of any merit , that the opposite party No.1 operates on principal to principal basis with all its dealers , that the error, omission or misrepresentation, if any , by the dealer concerned at the time of retailing the services of the car is sole responsibility of the said dealer and its liability is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone , that the complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for a sum of Rs.14000/- towards the exchange bonus and under the alleged Navratra offers apart from interest and costs but Navratra Offers advertisement on which reliance has been placed by the complainant was not published by it and it was of M/S Tapan Hyundai another authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 and that the Exchange bonus offer is payable subject to certain formalities which as per the information available from the opposite party No.2 were not complied with by the complainant , that there exists no cause of action agaisnt the opposite party No.1. On merits , the opposite party No.1 has admitted the purchase of the Hyundai car on 30-4-2008 from M/S Sant Hyundai , Kangra , H.P. and that there was State Government Employees Scheme and the Exchange Bonus but the same was subject to certain terms and conditions . It has been contended that the complainant had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus scheme . The documents were required to be submitted at the Head quarters of the opposite parties within 90 days from the date of invoicing of new car and the transfer of old car was to be effected within 60 days of invoicing of new car to be eligible for the exchange bonus scheme but the documents have not been received within stipulated period . It has further been contended that the matter is inter – se between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 and it had no role to play in the same . It has further been contended that since the complainant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the Scheme , he was not entitled for the sum offered under the said scheme. The opposite party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3 The opposite party No.2 filed reply and resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands . On merits the opposite party No.2 had admitted the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant With regard to Special Navratra offer , the opposite party No.2 has averred that it has done free insurance, central door locking system and other accessories worth Rs.20,000/- whereas the offer as stated was of only Rs.1500/-. It has been admitted that the car was delivered to the complainant at Sunder Nagar at his personal request and PDA slip was signed by the complainant The opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

4. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting the averments made in the reply by the opposite parties .

5 We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Santro car from the opposite party No.2 who is dealer of the opposite party No.1 i.e. the manufacturer under the scheme Exchange Offers for old car to the H.P. State Government Employees . According to the complainant , he was entitled to Rs.14,000/- under the said scheme within 45 days from the date of delivery of new car . The further case of the complainant is that a Special Navratra Offer was also made by the opposite party No.2. On the other hand , the case of the opposite party No.2 is that with respect to Special Navratra Offer , the complainant was given free Insurance, central door locking system and other accessories worth Rs.20,000/- and the claim of Rs. 14,000/- was to be paid by the opposite party No.1 after verification. It has not been denied by the complainant in the rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party No.2 that free insurance central door locking and other accessories worth Rs.20,000/- were not given to him by the opposite party No.2 and rather it has been mentioned that the same were not covered under the Exchange and Corporate bonus scheme . Therefore ,so far as the Special Navratra Offer scheme is concerned , the complainant is not entitled to any amount in view of the pleadings of the parties.



6 The opposite party No.1 had admitted that there was State Government Employees and Exchange bonus Scheme but the same was subject to certain terms and conditions . It is not in dispute that the complainant was the employee of the State Govt. According to the opposite party No.1 , as per the terms and condition of the scheme , necessary documents were required to be submitted at the head quarter of opposite party No.1 within 90 days from the date of invoicing of new car and the transfer of the old car was to be effected within 60 days of invoicing of new car to become eligible for the exchange bonus scheme . However as per the case of the opposite party No.1 the complainant has failed to submit the complete set of documents within the prescribed period and, therefore , he was not eligible for the said scheme . It is the specific case of the complainant that he had submitted the documents with the opposite party No.2 within time who is authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 as mentioned in the rejoinder. Therefore, in our opinion ,it was the duty of the opposite party No.2 to forward the relevant documents within time to the opposite party No.1 . In the reply of opposite party No.2 it has not been stated that the complainant failed to submit the relevant documents within prescribed time rather it has been stated that the claim of Rs,14000/- was to be paid by the opposite party No.1 after verification. There are no pleadings and evidence on record by the opposite party No.2 to suggest that the documents were not submitted within time by the complainant with the opposite party No.2.Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record , it cannot be said that the documents were not submitted by the complainant within the prescribed period. Hence the non payment of Rs.14,000/- under the concerned scheme amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs..14,000/- to the complainant.



7 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 14,000/-to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Apart from this the opposite parties are also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.3000 /- on account of compensation for harassment suffered by him due to deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation.

8 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.


9 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Complaint Case No.277/2008

Date of Institution 19-9-2008

Date of Decision 7-12-2009
Chint Ram son of Sh.Ram Chand resident of village Bah, Post Office Padhwahan, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P.
…Complainant
V/S
1. Shivansh Hyundai , NH-21 Gutkar , Mandi, H.P.

2. Sant Hyundai NH-20, 1 Km Milestone Mataur Palampur Gurkhari Kangra -175021 HP.



3. Hyundai North Regional Office Marketing and Sales Regional Office A-30 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Mathura Road New Delhi. 110044

…..Opposite parties



For the complainant Sh. Rajesh Sharma Advocate

For the opposite party No.1 Sh. Noor Ahmad Advocate

Opposite party No.2 Exparte

For the opposite party No.3 Sh. Sh.Abhishekpal ,Advocate
Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . The complainant averred that he is proprietor of M/S Thakur Furniture Industries , Jail Road, Mandi and raised loan from HDFC Bank for the purchase of Hyundai Santro car ( N/AC) car from the opposite party No.2 who is the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.3 . The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- as price of the vehicle and it was told by the opposite party No.2 that the complainant shall get three free services from the company and three coupons were issued alongwith the vehicle manual and told that these coupons would be valid at all Hyundai dealerships, dealer branches and authorized service centers in India . On 3-8-2008, the complainant went to the opposite party No.1 to carry out the first free service of the vehicle but the opposite party No.1 totally refused to entertain the complainant. The opposite party No.1 stated that they are not bound to do Free service of these vehicles purchased from other dealers and advised to go to the opposite party No.2 for free services , The free coupons were shown to the opposite party No.1 but it totally refused to entertain the complaint and used hard words in front of others employees and two friends accompanying him. The complainant averred that he telephonically contacted the opposite party No.2 and told the entire episode and he was assured by the opposite party No.2 to visit the opposite party No.1 on next day .On 4-8-2008 the complainant again went to the opposite party No.1 and asked them for first free service as per the coupon given to him by the opposite party No.2 and he was told that opposite party No.1 is ready to do free service as per discussion with the opposite party No.2 and requested him to wait for some time. After two hours , at 2,30 P.M. gate pass No.3620 dated 4-8-2008 was issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant and vehicle was taken to workshop for service . After some time when the complainant visited the workshop of the opposite party No.1, he found that nothing had been done and on enquiry the Manager stated they will not carry out free service of the vehicle because it had been purchased from other dealer and not from them and Manager of the opposite party No.1 totally refused to entertain the request of the complainant . The opposite party No.1 further told that they are ready to carry out service on payment basis . The complainant alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite party No. 1, he was forced to take the vehicle for service to Manali which is also authorized service centre of the Hyundai company . The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. With these allegations, the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to carry out the remaining free services of the vehicle of the complainant and has also claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Apart from this litigation expenses have also been claimed.



2 The opposite party No.1 resisted the complainant by raising preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed just to hush –up the money from the opposite party No.1. On merits , the opposite party No.1 had denied the contents of the complaint in totality . It has been admitted that the facility of three free services is provided by the company to every newly purchased vehicle and the customer is at liberty to get the service of their vehicle with any dealer of the company and the company used to pay the charges of that service to the dealer. . It had been denied that the complainant came on 3-8-2008 to the opposite party No.1 and it had refused to entertain the complainant . It has been submitted that the complainant came with his vehicle on 4-8-2008 at about 2.30 P.M and entered his vehicle in the premises of the opposite party No.1 and gate pass was issued to the complainant as per the routine which was used to be issued to every vehicle which entered in the premises . It has been pleaded that the complainant has not taken time from the opposite party No.1 for the service of the vehicle as many other vehicles were on line before the arrival of the vehicle of the complainant. so the employees of the opposite party No.1 requested the complainant to come on next time by taking the time as per the schedule but the complainant felt infuriated and took his vehicle from the premises of the opposite party No.1 The opposite party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.



3 The opposite party No.2 has resisted the complaint and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable , that the complainant has not come with cleans hands. On merits , the opposite party No.2 had denied the contents of complaint and averred that the opposite party No.2 was ready to effect free service of the vehicle in question in case the complainant talked about the subject matter in controversy. It has further been averred that the complainant has never asked the opposite party No.2 to do free repair of the vehicle but even then the opposite party No.2 is ready to effect service of the vehicle in question. The opposite party No.2 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint. qua it .

4 The opposite party No.3 filed reply and resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.3, that the complaint is with respect to the refusal of the opposite party No.1 to carry out first free service of the car and that the opposite party No.3 deals with all its dealers on principal to principal basis and the concerned dealer is responsible for error/ omission/ mis-representation. On merits , the opposite party No.3 averred that it being manufacturer of the Hyundai car its liability is limited and extends to the warranty obligations alone . It has been submitted that the warranty given by the opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer is an all India warranty and the customer is entitled to have the Hyundai vehicle purchased and serviced throughout the length and breadth of the country from any of its authorized dealers of Hyundai or Hyundai Authorized Service centre i.e. HASC. It has further been submitted that the complainant’s car was carried out free second service by the opposite party No.2 as per

Annexure -2. The opposite party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

5. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting the averments made in the reply by the opposite parties .

6 We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record. Be it stated that there is no dispute with regard to the sale of the vehicle by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant. There is also no dispute that the complainant was provided with coupons of free services on the purchase of the vehicle by the opposite party No.2 who is the dealer of the opposite party No.3. It is also admitted by all the opposite parties that warranty given by the opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer is an all India warranty and the customer is entitled to have the Hyundai vehicles purchased and serviced throughout the country from any of its dealer or authorized Service Centre . It is also not in dispute that the opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.3 . The only dispute arises for determination by this Forum is as to whether the opposite party No.1 who is the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.3 had refused to carry out the first free service of the vehicle as per the coupons provided to him by the dealer or not. It is admitted by the opposite party No.3 that facility of three free services is provided by the opposite party No.3 to every newly purchased vehicle and the customers are at liberty to get the service of their vehicles done with any dealer of the company and the Company used to pay the charges of that service to the dealer who conducts that service on free coupon. The case of the complainant is that on 3-8-2009 he visited the opposite party No.1 to carry out first free service of his vehicle but the same was denied by the opposite party No.1.on the ground that they were not bound to do the service of the vehicle purchased from other dealers and advised him to go to the opposite party No.2 for the free service . On this, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 telephonically and brought this fact to it and assurance was given by the opposite party No.2 to again visit the opposite party No.1 on the next day. On the next day i.e. on 4-8-2008 the complainant again visited the premises of the opposite party No.1 alongwith his vehicle and after waiting for complete two hours , he was issued gate pass No.3620 on 4-8-2008 at 2.30 PM and after that the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the opposite party No.1 . According to the complainant, when he visited the workshop of the opposite party No.1 after some time , he found that nothing had been done and on enquiry, the Manager told him that Free service would not be carried out as the vehicle has been purchased from other dealer and

he was further informed that they were ready to carry out the service of the vehicle only on payment basis . The factum of issuance of the Gate pass has not been denied by the opposite party No.1 and it has also been admitted that on 4-8-2008 the complainant was issued gate pass No.3620 at 2.30 PM. However, the version of the opposite party No.1 is that free service was never refused to the complainant but as many other vehicles were on line before the arrival of the vehicle of the complainant , therefore , due to rush of the vehicles , the Manager of the opposite party No.1 requested the complainant to come on the next day by taking prior appointment as the customers had to take prior appointment from the opposite party No.1 generally as per schedule and on this the complainant felt infuriated and took the vehicle from the workshop of the opposite party No.1. However, no evidence has been led by the opposite party No.1 to this effect. The opposite party No.1 could have filed the Job cards of 4-8-2008 pertaining to the service/ repair of other vehicles which were on line before the arrival of the vehicle of the complainant , but no such job cards of other vehicles had been produced by the opposite party No.1 in evidence . Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the opposite party No.1 that the customers have to take prior appointment as per the schedule to get their vehicle serviced from it. It is not understandable when the opposite party No.1 was aware of the fact that there were many vehicles on line, why gate pass had been issued to the complainant’s vehicle . The complainant has supported his averments made in the complaint by filing affidavits of S/Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Harish Kumar. Therefore in the entirety of the circumstances , it has been established by the complainant that he had brought his vehicle for service to the workshop of the opposite party No.1 on 4-8-2008 but the free service was declined by the opposite party No.1 as per the free coupon given by the opposite party No.2 which tentamounts to gross deficiency in service on its part and the opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant for harassment and inconvenience suffered by him due to its act .The complainant had alleged in the complainant that he was forced to go to Patli Kuhal ( Manali ) for carrying out the first free service from authorized dealer of the opposite party No.3 despite the fact that the opposite party No.1 is stationed at Gutkar and located only a distance of

5 kilometres from Mandi and in this manner he spent considerable amount on his to and fro journey . We agree with the version of the complainant because he had to undertake to and fro journey for more than 150 kilometres to get his vehicle serviced at Yashveer Motors ,Patlikuhal ( Manali ) as per job card dated 16-8-2008 due to the refusal of the opposite party No.1 to carry out free service and in this way he had to spent considerable amount on his journey , besides he had suffered lot of inconvenience, harassment and mental tension due to the act and conduct of the opposite party No.1. Hence , in the interest of justice , it would be appropriate if we award a sum of Rs.3000/- on this score.

7. The opposite party No.3 in its reply had stated that second free service of the complainant’s car was carried out as per schedule by the opposite party No.2 as per Annexure -2 . During the course of arguments , it has been stated by the ld. counsel for the complainant that third free service of the vehicle had also been carried out . Hence the prayer of the complainant that the opposite parties be directed to carry out the remaining free service of the complainant’s vehicle has become infructuous .



8 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.3000/-to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization . Apart from this the opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation.

9 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

10 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Consumer Complaint No: 108/2008

Date of presentation: 30.06.2008

Date of decision: 24/12/2009
Ms. Sunita Panwar, W/o Sh. Rupinder,

R/o Panwar Niwas, Tank Road, Solan H.P.

… Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Novelty Hyundai, Dalhausie Road Pathankot Through its Manager.



2. M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Plot No. H-1, Sipcot, Industrial Park- Irrungattukottai, Nh-4, Sriperu MBUDUR T.K. KancheePuram, District Tamilnadu-602108.

…Opposite Parties.

For the complainant: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No. 1: Exparte.

For the Opposite Party No. 2: Ms. Amita Sipahiya, Advocate.


O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, he purchased a brand new Hyundai Getz Car from M/S Silver Line Hyundai, Chambaghat, Solan, on, 28.12.2006, who had offered many promotional schemes at that time, i.e. MP3 player, center locking and cash discount of Rs.10,000/-. It is averred that, he at the time of the delivery of the aforesaid car, paid margin money in cash to M/S Silver Line Hyundai, but the margin money discount of Rs.10,000/- was not adjusted on the pretext that the cheque will be delivered to him, at the given address, which will also come from Pathankot. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OPs and requested them to do the needful, but of no avail. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, this Forum, lacks the territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it is contended that the car was delivered to the complainant in a perfect running condition, as any other new car, without any technical or mechanical defect. It is further contended that the dealer is solely responsible for error/omission/misrepresentation if any, at the time of retail sales of the car, since it is interse the concerned dealer and the customer. However, the Op No.1, did not put in appearance before this Forum, despite service, hence, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in not defraying to her, the cash discount of Rs.10,000/-. The OP No.2, has repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, it is the sole responsibility of the dealer to provide the incentive if any offered at the time of the sale of the car and their liability is restricted and limited alone to the warranty furnished by it.

6. The averred fact of, the complainant having purchased a brand new Hyundai Getz Car from M/S Silver Line Hyundai, Chambaghat, Solan HP an associate of Novelty Hyundai Dalhousie Road, Pathankot on, 28.12.2006, is, belied by Annexure-2 as well, as, the reply of OP No.1, revealing, the, fact that the dealership of Silver Line Hyundai was deleted from 21.07.2006 which fact has remained not controverted. Hence, bearing in mind the fact that the car was purchased under Annexure-2 on 27.12.2006, subsequent to the cancellation of dealership of the purported seller of the car, it, is obvious, that the bonus of a cash discount offer made by the purported dealer namely M/s Silver Line Hyundai Chambaghat, who, is averred to be a, dealer of the above make of the car, at the time of, its, purchase, yet, with the purchase having been made under Annexure-2 from M/S Novelty Hyundai, who, is not averred to have held out such a promise, hence, the, relief of the promised cash discount being directed to be defrayed by M/s M/s Silver Line Hyundai Chambaghat, which, hence, for answering the averment, qua it, was, a, necessary party, for, its, non impleadment, together with other reasons aforesaid, is, to be denied.

7. So far as the grievance of the complainant, regarding defect in the excel, is, concerned, she herself, in paragraph 6 of the complaint, has averred that, she, had visited the showroom M/S Tapan Hyundai, at, Solan to, seek rectification of the excel problem, yet, belatedly, after the expiry of warranty period, hence, when the warranty period, had, already lapsed, at the time of her noticing the purported defect, qua, whose eruption also, no proof has been adduced. as such, it cannot be said, that, the OPs, are under any legal obligation to rectify the excel problem, at, their own costs.

8. What flows from the above discussion, is, that, the complainant has not been able to bring home the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence, entitling him to claim the relief as sought under this complaint, as such, we are left with no other option, but to reject the complaint, being merit less. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

do u throw some light please?

Originally Posted by mvvrajam@gmail.com

do u throw some light please?

Dear Sir,

I am extremely sorry to intrude in your smooth official activities. I have some points to bring to your notice.

With great enthusiasm I had purchased a Hyundai I-10 Magna from Samara Hyundai on 25th April, 2009 and was a very satisfied customer.

The vehicle was regularly serviced from Samara Hyundai and recently it was serviced on 25th June, 2010. We never had any problem with Samara Hyundai.

We had visited Agra on 6th November, 2010 morning and returned on the same day night. We never had any problem during this visit. Since we were planning to visit Chandigarh on 8th November, 2010 morning, I approached Sunrise Hyundai, Delhi on 7th November, 2010 (Mileage 10759) for servicing. I had also informed about our plan to visit Chandigarh and requested for servicing (paid service), like wheel balancing, change of engine oil, coolant and other normal requirements as is being done when given for servicing. The vehicle was delivered to us in the evening (though the horn was not functioning, before taking delivery, it was informed to set it right and got it done). The amount charged for this was Rs. 3365.00.

On 8th November, 2010 morning around 6 a.m. we ventured with family with a small kid of 2 years to Chandigarh. After crossing Sonepet, there was some sound coming and finally the vehicle broke down. I tried to contacted 1-800-11-4645 and they informed that since it is more than one year we will not be able to send anyone to the spot for its analysis or help and given different numbers to approach. I tried all the numbers but no proper response could be elicited from Hyundai. In the bitter cold, I requested the Call Centre that I am ready to pay the amount so that we do not have to face problem. Even to this request, the response was not polite and they informed me to contact the nearest service centre. After persistent and fervent calls, around 1100 hours M/s Malwa Auto, Sonepet came to our rescue and visited the spot and tried to start the car. It was not responding they took the vehicle to their workshop.

On verification it was informed that the engine got heated up and there seems to be major problem. The mileage at that time was 10839. It may be seen that after servicing the vehicle and not even 100 kms it could cross, it broke down causing severe mental agony. When approached Sunrise they informed me that they do service every day to many vehicles but it is not their mistake. At the time of crisis the approach was not of acceptable nature. In fact the vehicle is under warranty.

Moreover, the steering wheel was also fixed wrongly (i.e. when you sit in front of the steering wheel it should be ‘T’ whereas it was fixed upside down. This has also caused some inconvenience and the indicator could not be seen. This is example of the quality of the service extended to the vehicle by Sunrise. I would like Hyundai to ponder over one issue –is it not the responsibility of the Service Centre Sunrise to extend necessary assistance, which could have proved, if the mistake is not their. Need be they could have taken the vehicle, whereas they response was not business like one. They informed us to bring the vehicle to their service centre. When the vehicle is immovable, how can I bring it to their workshop which was stagnated on the highway.

Even the Hyundai Service centre could not extend any helping hand. When an email was sent to customer care, Hyundai has informed that it is not the mistake of Sunrise, without even seeing the vehicle and send some photographs inside the vehicle saying it is an accident case and go for insurance. If it is an accident case, there should be some impact on the bumper, but they have sent the photograph of this. When I said that I had not met with an accident and also the vehicle was not hit by any other vehicle, they simply ignored my words. I do not see any reason to approach insurance when it was not an accident case. Does Hyundai want me to tell lie to get insurance cover.

On 28th November, 2010, I got back the vehicle from Malwa Hyundai and the expenditure was Rs. 42,439. Here, I would like to mention that I have no regrets for meeting this expense but why Hyundai was not in a position to help the customer when they need the most.

Now coming to the end, when the vehicle is under warranty how it could seize. When I repeatedly requested why Hyundai has not responded to my query that how Sunrise fixed the steering wheel upside down and what servicing they have done. Only washing the vehicle is not considered servicing.

I would request your goodself to look into this and make a thorough enquiry. If the vehicle is under warranty, how this could have happened. In fact when I approached the Hyundai service centre, they were only protecting the Dealer than the customer. Is it not the duty of Hyundai to look into the matter than simply informing that it is not the mistake of the Service centre. I hope if any untoward thing had happened Hyundai will try to pass the buck on the customer than the Dealer.

Last but not the least, when I requested for the postal address or email address of CEO, Hyundai has not responded to my mail. This shows that there seems to be some thing went wrong at Sunrise and Hyundai wanted to protect them. I hope as a leading auto manufacturer you will take keen interest in looking into the problem of the customer so that your reputation is high in front of other auto manufacturers.

Yes it could be my mistake, but Hyundai should have helped at the time of crisis. My second mistake was I had gone for Hyundai then Maruti. Now I leave it to you.

Thanks and regards

Yours truly,
PK Varadarajan
Administrative Officer (HR)
BHEL, New Delhi
9910525591


pkv@bhel.in

Packers and movers in Bangalore, Logistics in Bangalore, packers and movers companies, packing and moving Bangalore,GLOBE Cargo Movers (GCM) is associated with some well-reputed packing and moving companies within the country and abroad to serve the growing number of companies relocating corporate employees.

Gears are used in a number of applications in manufacturing industries and used extensively in manufacturing machines that depends on them for their fundamental operations. Gear cutting is a process of gear manufacturing. The common processes involved in this are broaching, machining, hobbing, shaping, casting, extruding, forging etc. The materials used for making gears are wood, metal and plastic. Metals are shaped in appropriate sizes and dimensions with these gear cutters. Gear cutter can be of various shapes and sizes according to the requirement of the gear.
For more information please visit: capital tool and gear cutter

Sub: Exchange bonus payment delayed since 3 Years. Inefficient customer service

Hi,

We have bought Hyundai Santro in 2009, during which the dealership mentioned about exchange offer of 10,000 RS for which we were very much eligible.
We submitted all the required documents, but till now we have not received the amount. We have placed a complaint with HMIL during 2010, they have issued complaint ID but still no use. I spoke to Customer service head south during 2011
she pursued this issue for a while, during this she informed us the Exchange bonus has been rejected since a document is missing. Where as we have submitted all the required documents, and Dealership people are saying they submitted all the documents.
Then why are we not getting the promised bonus amount, we feel as if we are cheated. This issue has been running since 3 years, which is a shame given Hyundai is such a reputed name.
Will you be able offer any sort of help.

Regards,
Madan