Date of Filing: 30-01-2018

Date of Order: 20-12-2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

                                                       P r e s e n t­                                                                                     

   HON’BLE  Sri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Sri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B   MEMBER

HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM. (PGD (ADR),  MEMBER   

ON THIS THE THURSDAY   THE  20^th     DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

C.C.No.58/2018

Between

Munnar Ravinder,

S/o.  Late M.Krishnaiah,  Aged 60 years,

Occ: Legal practitioner, R/o. H. No.42-252,

Sri Krishna Nilayam,

New Gunj, Beside RTC Bus – Stand,

Wanaparthy Town, Dist. Mahaboobnagar (Telangana State).        ,,,,,Complainant

And               

1. The Manager, Lakshmi Hyundai
1.  

3-6-436,437,438, Naspur House, Himayathnagar,

Hyderabad, (TS),

2. The Workshop Manager, Lakshmi Hyundai
1.  

#8-2-287/11/Am, Road No.14, Back side Lane of Cinemax,

Near L V Prasad Eye Institute, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad -34 (TS).

3. Regional Officer, Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

“Vaishnavi Cynosure”, Unit 4 G & 4 H,

Survwey No.18, Opp: Telecome Nagar,

Gachibowli, Hyderabad (Telaqana) India -32.

Counsel for the complainant                             :  Mr.A.Ravinder

Counsel for the opposite Parties  1 & 2             : Mr. Manoj Kumar  Akula

Counsel for the opposite Parties  3                    : Mr.V.Basava Raju

                                           O R D E R

(By.  Smt. CH. Lakshmi Prasanna,B.Sc. LLM (PGD ( ADR)., Member on behalf of  

                                                   Bench)

1. The complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 against the opposite parties, seeking to grant the following reliefs:

1. To direct the opposite parties to return the collected amount of Rs.64,448/-  towards Car AC repair and servicing
2. To direct the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-towards pain, suffering, and mental agony and
3. And pay the costs of litigation

2. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant purchased a Elantra Car on 2/2/2013 from O.P.No.1 and gave it for periodical service on 19/12/2015 at O.P.No.2’s workshop and specifically for servicing/repair of AC system that was not working properly, as mentioned inEx.A3 Vehicle Inventory. Apparently, on completion of servicing, the complainant collected his vehicle on 20/12/2015 paying an amount of Rs.16,872/- to opposite party No.2. On finding that the AC in his car was still not working properly, he informed opposite party No.2 about the same, opposite party No.2 agreed that there is a problem with the AC system and it should be replaced. The complainant asked to replace it under warranty and the car was collected by O.PNo.2 for replacement of the AC system on 3/1/2016 but informed the complainant that the warranty period has expired andthat it would take more than 2 weeks for the replacement with estimation of charges of Rs.20,000/- 25,000/- for the same. When there was no response from opposite party No.3, the Regional Office of the HMIL, the complainant was forced to give consent for repairing the AC system which was leaking and not working as per Ex A1, the vehicle inventory. The carwas handed over to the complainant by opposite party No.2 after completion of repair of the car on 18/2/2016 , almost after 45 days with a Bill of Rs.64,448/-. As there was no choice, the complainant paid the said amount under protest. The complainant alleges that opposite party No.2 not only charged unreasonably excess than the estimated charges but also is found wanting in providing services as expected of a technically skilled person in the industry. After serving a legal notice on the Opposite Parties, demanding to return the amount of Rs.64,448/-, the complainant has filed the present petition.

3. In their  written version, the Opposite Parties No.1& 2 denied all the allegations even denying the facts that the complainant’s car has been given for servicing and repair of the AC along with other common repair works. The Opposite parties claim to have replaced the compressor free of cost when it was given for repair on 3/2/2016 by the complainant. Denying all other allegations of deficiency of service on their part, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 made a counter allegation that the complainant has suppressed the fact that his car met with an accident and when O.P.No.2 refused to replace the AC and other parts free of cost, the present complaint was lodged with malafide intention for wrongful gain.
4. In the written version filed by the opposite party No.3., who is the manufacturer of the automobiles, raised the preliminary objection of limited liability and obligations within warranty period, and hence cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions, misrepresentation, deficiency of service  of opposite No.1 & 2, as there is no principal-agent relationship between the Opposite Parties when the title of the vehicle is transferred to the concerned dealer, the moment it is put on the common carrier for transport to the automobile dealer workshop. And that there is no evidence of manufacturing defect as the complainant’s car ran for more than two years without any problem. And that opposite party No.3 is not liable for the after-sale services of the complainant’s car being purchased on retail sale and no cause of action  arose against opposite party No.3 and hence not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
5. In the enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the averments in the complaint supporting his claim with 9 documents ( EX A1 to A9) while evidence affidavit of the Chief Financial Officer of O.P 1&2 and  Asst.Manager, Legal & Secretarial of Opposite Party No.3  is filed and Ex B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 including the Vehicle Inventory, Repair Order and Invoice for the repair of the Complainant’s car.
6. Based on the facts and material brought on record, and written arguments submitted by both the parties, the following points have emerged or consideration:

1. Whether there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim/compensation made in the complaint?
3. To what relief?

7. Point No.1:- The undisputed facts are that the AC of complainant’s car was not working properly and was given for repair in the workshop of opposite parties No. 1& 2 on 19/12/2015 as evidenced from the Vehicle Inventory Ex. A3 and delivered on 20/12/2015 on payment of Rs.16,872/- by the complainant for the servicing of AC and other common works of his car. As the problem of AC persisted after the delivery of the car on 20/12/2015 even after servicing, the complainant approached opposite party .No2 on 3/1/2016 (as evidenced in Ex A1  Vehicle Inventory) for replacement of the AC. However, the warranty period having expired on 2/2/2015 i.e. After completion of 2 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite party ..No.2 refused to replace the AC and agreed to repair at an estimated cost of Rs.20,000-25,000/- While opposite party No.2 claims to have replaced the compressor free of cost, Ex A2 the invoice dt.18/2/2016 shows that  an amount of Rs.64,448/- (including cost of condenser and other parts) was duly  paid by the complainant at the time of collecting his vehicle. On the issue of recurring of the AC problem and leakage even after the repair/servicing of the car, two questions, that fall for consideration  are  a) as to whether, the A.C. system of the complainant’s car was a manufacturing defect or b) whether opposite party  No.2 did not rectify and fix the problem properly. The fact that the complainant used the car without any AC complaint for nearly more than two years from the date of purchase 2/2/2013 and in the absence of evidence on record or technical finding by any expert in support of the contention regarding inherent defect or manufacturing fault in the AC when the car was purchased, no liability can be fastened against the Opposite Parties and opposite party No.3 in particular. As far as the non-working of AC even after repair and servicing of the car is concerned, it is clear that opposite party No.2 delivered the car to the complainant without rectifying the AC problem as evidenced in the Vehicle Inventory ExA3  and receiving service charges of Rs.16,872/- thereby causing inconvenience to the complainant forcing him to revisit the workshop incurring expenditure again for repair of the same problem. Even though the complainant had requested for replacement of the whole AC system, opposite party ..No.2 charged  an amount of Rs.64,448/- (Ex A2 the invoice dt.18/2/2016) towards condenser and other parts, duly paid by the complainant at the time of collecting his vehicle. Deficiency of service is writ large in the conduct of opposite party No.2 in not rendering after-sale services as expected of a technical person with requisite knowledge and expertise needed for the purpose and lack of exercising reasonable degree of skill and care in the conduct of his duties.
8. Point No.2:- Considering the repeated visits of the complainant to the workshop for his Car-AC  repairing within three years of its purchase and incurring extra expenditure for recurring problem owing to the deficient services, Opposite Party No.2 is liable to compensate the Complainant for causing inconvenience, mental agony, physical discomfort, unnecessary loss of time and unforeseen expenditure.

However as opposite party No.2 alone is accountable for the after-sale services and there being no evidence of manufacturing defect, the forum is of the considered opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.3.

9. Point No.3:-In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed.

The opposite parties  No.1 & 2 are hereby directed as under::-

1. to return the collected amount of Rs.64,448/-  towards Car AC repair and servicing
2.  to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-towards pain, suffering, and mental agony and
3. to pay  Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of litigation

This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on this the   19^th     day of   December, 2019.

  MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

                                                                      NIL

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 -  Copy of  vehicle Inventory of Lakshmi Hyundai, dt. 3.1.2016

Ex.A2 – Copy of   Invoice / Cash memo  dt.18.2.2016

Ex.B3 – Copy of  vehicle Inventory of Lakshmi Hyundai, dt. 3.1.2015

Ex.A4 –  Copy of  invoice / Cash memo dt. 20.12.2015

Ex.A5 -  Legal notice dt.12.5.2017

Ex.A6 – 3 postal  receipts    Dt.16.5.2017

Ex.A7 – Postal acknowledgement

Ex.A8 – Copy of booklet of Hyundai

Ex.A9 – DL No.313/MBNR/1977 of complainant.

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:

Ex.B1 –  Copy of  vehicle Inventory of Lakshmi Hyundai,

Ex.B2 –  Repair order dt. 15.2.2016

Ex.B3 – Copy of invoice / cash memo

Ex.B4 –  Copy of pre invoice

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT