+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Shivansh Motors

This is a discussion on Shivansh Motors within the Four Wheeler forums, part of the Automobile category; Naveen Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Uttam Chand Sharma resident of village Siharal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. at present ...

  1. #1
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,696

    Default Shivansh Motors

    Naveen Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Uttam Chand Sharma resident of village Siharal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. at present H.No. 232/3 Mohalla Jail Road Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.


    V/S

    M/S Shivansh Motors Pvt Ltd Gutkar , Post Office Gutkar , Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. through its Manager


    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 party. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Santro car on 7-7-2005 from the opposite party bearing registration No. HP-31A-1585 . The opposite party issued extended warranty registration form on the same date wherein two options were given by the opposite party to their customers for availing free service and the complainant opted for the second option whereby free service was to be carried out by the opposite party up to completion of five years of the vehicle from its purchase or up to one lac kilometres from the date of delivery, which ever is occurred first for which option the complainant has paid extra premium in addition to the price of the vehicle .

    It has been alleged that till date the vehicle had covered mileage of 14853 kilometres and only three years and seven months have passed on 7-2-2009 from the date of purchase and warranty will expire on 7-7-2010 or in the alternative when the vehicle is plied up to one lac. The opposite party had provided free first service on 11-9-2005, then on 11-1-2006, 9-7-2006, 8-7-2007 and on 13-1-2008 as per Annexures C-3 to C-7. The complainant alleged that 13-7-2008, the vehicle was again taken to the workshop of the opposite party for availing free service as per Annexure C-1 but after service the opposite party had charged Rs.1350/- and when complainant pointed out that free service of vehicle is yet to be carried out by the opposite party as per Annexure C-1, then the opposite party did not bother and not replied satisfactorily and simply asked the complainant to pay Rs.1350/- failing which they stated that they will not allow the complainant to take out the vehicle from their workshop complex .

    The complainant paid Rs.1350/- in compelling circumstances towards cash invoice dated 13-7-2008 Annexure C-8.The complainant averred that thereafter he had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Act which was decided in his favour . The complainant further alleged that on 15-2-2009, the complainant again went to the workshop of the opposite party for availing free service as per Annexure C-1 but after service of the vehicle the opposite party had charged Rs.1659/- from him and when the complainant pointed out for free service and also showed the warranty Annexure C-1, the opposite party did not bother and asked him either to pay Rs.1659/- or they will not allow him to take the vehicle from their workshop complex. The complainant paid Rs.1659/- to the opposite party towards cash invoice dated 15-2-2009 in presence of Sh. Kaushal Pratap Singh and Ashwani Kumar who were accompanying the complainant at that time .It has been alleged that charging of Rs.1659/- by the opposite party during the free service amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice . With these allegations, the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.1659/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 15-2-2009 till payment and to carry out free service of the vehicle in future as per Annexure C-1 up to 7-7-2010 or till the vehicle is plied up to one lac kilometres and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental torture and harassment apart from costs of litigation.



    2 The opposite party failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte .

    3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record From the perusal of the complaint and accompanying documents following points arise for determination:-

    (i) Whether the vehicle of the complainant is within warranty period , as alleged?

    (ii) Whether the opposite party had been deficient in charging the amount of Rs.1659/- from the complainant.

    (iii) Relief


    Point No.1.

    4 The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a car on 7-7-2005 from the opposite party and opted for five years warranty of the same or up to coverage of 1,00,000/- kilometres from the date of delivery of the vehicle which ever occurs first and for which option the complainant had paid extra premium.

    The complainant had also placed on record Annexure C-1 copy of the extended warranty form in support of his version which indicates that the complainant had opted for extended warranty for free service up to five years or up to 1,00,000 kilometres which occurs first from the date of delivery of the vehicle i.e. 7-7-2005 The extended warranty form is duly stamped by the opposite party. The complaint is supported with the affidavit of the complainant. The opposite party had not contested the complaint and was proceeded against exparte which shows that he has nothing to say in the matter. As per the complainant he had paid extra premium / amount in addition to the price of the vehicle while opting for extended warranty. As per the cash memo dated 15-2-2009 issued by the opposite party itself , the vehicle had covered 14798 kilometres as on 15-2-2009.The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 7-7-2005. Therefore , we have no hesitation to conclude that the vehicle HP31A-1585 of the complainant falls within the warranty period with respect to free service . Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.



    Point No.2.

    5 The complainant had alleged that the opposite party had charged Rs.1659/- from him for the service of the vehicle in question despite the fact that the vehicle falls within the warranty period. In support of his case, the complainant has placed on record cash memo in original and receipt Annexure C-12 which shows that a sum of Rs.1659/- has been charged from the complainant on 15-2-2009 on account of engine oil, filter assembly engine oil , wheel balancing , wheal alignment and periodic maintenance service .

    The complainant in his complaint has specifically stated that the vehicle has not covered 1,00,000/- kilometres and the same is covered under extended warranty up to five years from the date of delivery . In order to strengthen his case, the complainant had placed on record cash memo which depicts that the vehicle had covered a distance of 14798 kilometres up to 15-2-2009.We find a good deal of substance in the submission of the complainant that despite the vehicle is within the warranty period , the opposite party had charged him illegally .As discussed above, the vehicle is covered under extended warranty for free service up to five years or 1,00,000/- kilometres which occurs first and for that the complainant has paid extra premium / amount .

    Therefore , the opposite party was not justified in charging the periodic maintenance service charges. The opposite party had not contested the complaint which shows that he had nothing to say in the matter . Though the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.1659 - but cost of the filter assembly - engine oil and engine oil wheel alignment and balancing cannot be refunded and the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.540/- which has been charged by the opposite party as periodic Maintenance Service charges. Since there is no evidence contrary to the averments made in the complaint, we hold that charging of Rs. 540/- by the opposite party as per cash memo dated 15-2-2009 from the complainant is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice .

    Hence the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.540/- only from the opposite party. It has also been established by the complainant that the opposite party had caused harassment to him for which he is entitled to compensation. It has been observed by this Forum that the opposite party had willfully harassed the complainant as earlier also he was charged Rs.540/- illegally as periodical maintenance service charges and the complainant was forced to file complaint before this Forum which was allowed by this Forum but despite that the opposite party had again charged Rs.540/- from the complainant for periodic maintenance service charges during the warranty period . Hence , the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony caused to the complainant.

    Relief

    6 In the light of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed exparte and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 540/-to the complainant ,to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which it shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 9 % PA from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount. The opposite party is further directed to provide free service to the complainant in terms of extended warranty for a period of five years from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. from 7-7-2005 or in the alternative when the vehicle is plied up to 1,00,000 kilometres which ever occurs first.

  2. #2
    aby_vas Guest

    Default Exchange Discount of 15000 and other accessories not provided as promised

    Name & address of opposite parties… 1.) M/s Shivansh Hyundai (Shivansh
    Motors Pvt. Ltd.),
    NH 21, Gutkar
    Mandi, HP

    2.) Hyundai Motors Pvt. Ltd.
    Marketing & Sales Headquarters
    A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Phase-1,
    Mathura Road New Delhi - 110044


    I, the above named complainant respectfully state before the

    Hon’ble Forum the complaint as follows:
    1. Whereas I had purchased I10 Kappa Magna Vehicle from 1st party on dated 22 day of June 2009 (copy of retail invoices/bills as Annexure VII).

    2. Whereas the website of the company stated the price of the mentioned one vehicle to be Rs.3,92,701 (Rupees Three Lakhs ninety two thousand seven hundred and one only) (copy of webpage as Annexure X), the first party provided with invoice of Rs.4,01,701 (Rupees Four Lakhs one thousand seven hundred and one) (copy of invoice as Annexure IX) and their marketing representative namely Mr. Arun advised that they would provide additional insurance, Sony branded stereo systems with four speakers, good quality foot mats, leather seat covers, original fog lamps and keyless entry for this additional amount and the bill shall be provided with separate costs for these additional features.

    3. Still further Mr. Arun also assured return of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) under exchange old car scheme from the Company, for which the concerned documents shall have to be provided as per requirement of the Company, which were to be notified within one week.

    4. Still further they also charged Rs.500, on account of temporary registration of vehicle (copy of receipt of temporary registration as Annexure V) for which the actual charge is Rs.100, stating to provide Number Plates alongwith.

    5. Whereas full payment for the vehicle was made on 22nd June 2009, through Demand Draft of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) (copy of draft as Annexure IV), to their authorized representative in Kullu, and the balance Cash Payment of Rs.1,243/- (Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Three only) (copy of receipt of balance payment as Annexure V) at the Cash Counter in the showroom itself, Mr. Arun pleaded fault in computer system stating to have online billing system and said that they would provide the bills the day after through their authorized representative in Kullu.

    6. Mr. Arun also assured that fog lamps were not in stock and shall be provided and fixed within one week in Kullu itself and he also wrote this in one of the documents of the vehicle, which was also not provided. The Leather Seat Covers were also not available and thus ordinary seat covers had to be compromised with. The foot-mats were also of poor quality.

    7. Further the stereo system provided by the first party was local made and not Sony branded.

    8. The Bills were received after four days, and to my surprise, there was no separate mention of cost of insurance and other additional features, but also the bills were different for same kind of vehicles, with a sum of Rs.8461 (Rupees Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty One only) charged as Other Charges which was not present in the bill of same date of another vehicle of same make and kind. (copy of retail invoices/bills as Annexure VII)

    9. When I approached the 1st Party for the redressal of the same, as these bills would invite extra cost of registration on insurance and other additional features as well, they expressed there helplessness regarding the same and passed the buck to their Delhi Office, claiming to have received bills online from Delhi Office.

    10. Further the first party also did not provide any documents pertaining to exchange discount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only).

    11. Still further the first party also did not provide fog lamps and number plates even after repeated follow ups with Mr. Arun and their representatives at Kullu.

    12. Further it has come to my notice from the insurance policy document that IDV (Insured’s Declared Value) for the vehicle is Rs.3,81,181 (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty One only) (copy of insurance cover note as Annexure VIII)

    13. It seems that Rs. 9500 has been charged extra towards cost of Insurance and other accessories, which are not mentioned in the bill.

    14. Still further it has come to my notice that these were not mentioned on the bills because these are provided free to the consumers by the Manufacturer. (Print out of Offer’s News related to Hyundai i10 source from Auto Magazine Auto Car India dated 29th March 2009 published on April 2009 issue as Annexure XI)

    15. Whereas the discrepancies were brought to the notice of the company through emails (copy of E-mails along with receipts as Annexure III), but to no avail.

    16. Whereas Notice to move to the Hon’ble consumer court was also slashed to both the parties without any effect. (copy of Notice as Annexure I) (copies of receipts of registered post as Annexure II)

    17. Where as both the parties have provided false and misleading information, services and prices resulting to a damage of around Rs.10,750/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only)along with non provision of original fog lamps , number plates and also providing Unbranded Local Made Stereo System, poor quality foot mats and seat covers as well as using unfair trade practice to lure the customers with Rs.15,000/- exchange discount.

    ENCLOSURES: Signature of Complainant

    (a)Copy of Notice (1Nos) (Annexure I) SUBHASH SHARMA
    (Name of the complainant/Deponent)
    (b) Copies of Postal Receipts of Notices(1Nos) (Annexure II)

    (c) Copies of Emails along with receipts(4Nos) (Annexure III)

    (d) Copies of Draft (1Nos) (Annexure IV)

    (e) Copies of Receipts of Temporary Registration and Balance Payment.(1Nos) (Annexure V)

    (f) Copies of Payment Receipts. (1Nos) (Annexure VI)

    (g) Copies of Retail Invoices/Bills (2Nos) (Annexure VII)

    (h)Copies of Insurance Policy Cover Note(1Nos) (Annexure VIII)

    (i) Copies of Invoice (1Nos) (Annexure IX)

    (j) Print Out of PRICING Webpage of the Company Website.(1Nos) (Annexure X)

    (k) Print out of Offer’s News related to Hyundai i10 source from Auto Magazine Auto Car India dated 29th March 2009 published on April 2009 issue.(1Nos) (Annexure XI)

  3. #3
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Complaint against KUN UNITED HYUNDAI, HYDERABAD

    Venkatabalaji Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited
    21-2-632/2, Urdugalli, Pathergatti, Hyderabad-500002. AP. INDIA.
    Email: vsptmt@gmail.com


    Date: 21.08.10

    The Chairman & Managing Director,
    M/s. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd.,
    A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Phase-1,
    Mathura Road,
    New Delhi-110044.
    Phone:011-26959110
    Fax:011-26959019


    Dear sir,
    Sub: POOR and WORST service provided by
    KUN United Hyundai, Hyderabad.

    Ref: My Verna (Crdi) Car No. AP12 G 1972.

    With reference to the above, we would like to introduce as one of the esteemed customers of Hyundai and we own around 20 Hyundai cars including I10, I20, Santro, Accent, Verna, Tucson & Sonata. We are very much regret to inform you that for the above mentioned verna car, we have been cheated by the dealer and got the worst service from the Kun United Hyundai, Hyderabad. The incident is described as follows.

    There were some weird sounds in the engine of the car. Then immediately we took the car to KUN United Hyundai, Hyderabad for repair. The service advisor Mr. Naresh checked the car and told us that the estimate cost will be Rs.50,000/-

    Contd.2…
    -2-

    for repair of engine and suspension work. I again confirmed with him twice that is
    it for other works also or only engine and suspension. The service advisor replied that this charge will be purely only for the repair of engine and suspension. I asked him to go ahead for the repair and make my car hassle free. I have left the car at the workshop for repair.

    After couple of days I visited the workshop during the course of repair. I found that he has changed my rear door Latch. I told him that I have given you the consent for doing only Engine and Suspension work and not for the Accessories, so why did you change the Latch without asking me. The service advisor said that since only three doors were working with Central Locking and one door wasn’t working so I changed it. I said him still I didn’t wanted it but since you have already changed it let it be, but I asked him to show whether now all the four doors were working with central locking. Then the service advisor Mr. Naresh showed it to me the manual function as well as the remote function of the central locking and all the four doors were working alright. I was satisfied that all the four doors were working properly with the central locking and then I left the workshop.

    But I very much regret to again inform you that on 04.08.10 when I went to the workshop for taking the delivery of the car, they have charged me a total bill of Rs.40,086/- for the repair which included many of the Accessories. After paying the amount of Rs.40,086/- I found that the central locking was not working manually nor with the remote. I complained the same to the KUN United Hyundai

    Contd.3…

    -3-

    and they again checked and changed some Actuator. They gave me a separate bill of Rs.1300/- for the Actuator which I refused to pay.

    During the course of repair as mentioned above I visited the workshop and my Central locking was working perfectly alright and at the time of delivery it was not working. So, it is clear that it got faulty at the workshop itself, for which I am not responsible. Therefore, I am not liable to pay the amount of Rs.1300/-.

    After the taking the delivery of the car, within 2 days again there were same weird sounds from the Engine, left side of the Tyre as well as from the Steering. The same I complained to the Hyundai Customer Care at 1800114645 and spoke to Mr.Harish and explained him the whole situation and he said the problem will be solved in sometime. Later, I got a call from some lady who was the Customercare Manager of the KUN United Hyundai people and she said I will send the driver to collect the vehicle and your problem will be solved. Accordingly, next day the driver of KUN United Hyundai took the car from my house.

    After two days the same service advisor Mr. Naresh called up and said your car is ready and the bill is Rs.2000/-. I told him that I have already paid Rs.40,086/- for the repair and how do you expect me to pay more. He said that we have changed some 4 O Rings Injectors so for that you will be charged Rs.2000/- and you will have to pay for it. Further, I told him that you have already charged me for the 5 O Rings Injectors in my previous bill. He said that we have changed only 1 O Ring Injector previously whereas they have charged me for 5 O Ring Injector(Xerox

    Contd.4…
    -4-

    copy of the Bill is enclosed for ready reference). This shows the kind of service given by the KUN United Hyundai. They are changing only 1 no. and charging us for 5 nos. and replacing the good parts with some faulty duplicate parts so that the car should be sent to them again and the customer should be charged twice. I told him that why is this so then he said that “Your car has been driven 88000 KMS and you will have to face these problems with the car”. These problems are obvious in Hyundai Cars. I replied that I have a Toyota Innova Car that has driven 110000 KMS and still it is running smoothly and we haven’t done a single engine or suspension work of the car till now. But Mr. Naresh said these problems are to be faced with the Hyundai Cars.

    So, I would like to know from Hyundai that is this quality of service that is being provided to its customers by changing the good parts of the customer with faulty parts and troubling the customer. If this is so, then we have to stop taking Hyundai cars in future and we shall have to dispose off all the Hyundai cars immediately.

    Further, the customer care manager at KUN United Hyundai some lady spoke to me and said either you pay Rs.1300/- for the Actuator or Rs.2000/- for the O Rings Injectors then only you will get the car otherwise you will not get the car and she hang up. She further said that you can complain to anyone, it doesn’t matter to us.

    Immediately, I called the Hyundai Customer Care at 1800114645 and some Mr.

    Contd.5…
    -5-

    Ravi spoke to me and I explained him the whole situation on 19.08.10 and my complaint was registered. Mr. Ravi promised me that you will get your car within 48 hours. But still there was neither any call from the dealer nor from the Hyundai Company. On 21.08.10 at around 10:00 AM after 48 hours were passed and no action was taken then I again called the Hyundai Customer Care and spoke to Mrs. Kiran and again explained the whole situation. She said that your problem will be sorted out immediately. But again regret to note that till 04:30 pm there was no response then I again called the Hyundai Customer care and Mr. Harish spoke to me and again I explained the whole situation. Then Mr. Harish promised that he would talk to the dealer and call me back immediately within 15 minutes. But again there was no response, then again I called the Hyundai Customer Care at 06.00 PM and spoke to Mrs. Kiran and she again said me that within 10 minutes you will receive a call from Hyundai. After a couple of minutes, KUN United Service Manager Mr. Sharma called me. I again explained him the whole situation, but finally he said that you have to pay Rs.1300/- for the Actuator otherwise I can’t help it and you will not get your car. Then at 07:32 pm I again called the Hyundai Customer care and spoke to Mr. Shaurya but he said that your complaint is been forwarded and it will take sometime.

    With the entire above situation and conversations, I am very much disappointed that I have to leave all my work and do the correspondence with the Hyundai company. Kun United Hyundai has made a practice to remove good parts of the car by replacing with the faulty parts and charge the customer twice, thrice or even

    Contd.6…

    -6-

    more as per their will and wish. Looking at all this I would like to genuinely inform you that we have lost the TRUST on Hyundai Cars now. Further, we might not take any Hyundai cars in future with this quality of treatment and service from the company.

    Therefore, we would request you to please take stern action against the KUN United Hyundai and its staff and instruct them to return our car in good working condition.

    Please do the needful in the matter immediately.

    Thanking you.

    Yours faithfully,

    Copy to:

    1. M/s. Hyundai Motor Company,
    231, Yangjae-Dong,
    Seocho-Gu,
    Seoul – 137 938.
    Korea. For Information & Stern action against the Dealer.
    Email – ultra613@hyundai-motor.com

    2. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,
    Plot No.H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park,
    Irrungattukottai,
    Sriperumpudur,
    Kancheepuram – 602107.
    Tamil Nadu. For Information & Stern action against the Dealer.
    Phone: 044-47100000
    Fax: 044-47100400

    3. M/s. KUN United Hyundai, Hyderabad.

    4. M/s. Talwar Hyundai, Hyderabad.

    5. M/s. Lakshmi Hyundai, Hyderabad.

    6. M/s. Mody Hyundai, Hyderabad.

    7. The Press Guild, Hyderabad.

    8. The Speak Out, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad.

    9. The Times of India, Hyderabad.

    10. CNBC Awaaz

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. A.B. Motors
    By admin in forum Four Wheeler
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 09:10 PM
  2. Bhola Motors
    By admin in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 03:48 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 12:31 AM
  4. R. S. Motors pvt. Ltd.
    By SAURASHTRA FUELS in forum After sale Services
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 03:34 PM
  5. Hyundai motors
    By ranbir in forum Car
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 02:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •