DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 06^th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 23/01/2020   

CC/16/2020

Azarudheen.S

S/o Sahabudheen

R.S.Road, Pudunagaram

Peruvemba, Palakkad                                           -         Complainant

(By Adv. B.Ravikumar)

                                                           V/s

1. Ashirwad Hyundai

    Rep. by its Manager

    No.1, Raja Street, Nanjappa Nagar

    Trichy Road, Singanallur P.O

    Coimbatore – 641 005

    (By Adv. M/s R.Sivakumar, R.Vijay Bharadwaj,

S.Sandeep)

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

    Rep. by its Manager

    2^nd and 6^th Floors

    Corparate One (Baani Building)

    Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasala

    New Delhi – 110 076

3. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

    Rep. by its Manager

    Plot No. H.1, Sipcot Industrial Park

    Irungattukottai, Sreeperumbudur Taluk

    Kancheepuram Dist., Tamil Nadu – 602 117

    (2^nd & 3^rd Opposite parties by Adv. M/s P.Fazil,

Jithin Paul Varghese, Jayasree Manoj,

Rohith.K.S & Ann Mary Francis)

4. M/s Grand Hyundai, 2/804, 2^nd Mile

    Rep. by its Manager

    Ottappalam Road, Kallekkad

Palakkad                                                                  -         Opposite parties

(By Adv. V.Reetha)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Brief pleadings of the complainant

      The complainant purchased a car “CRETA 14 ORD. BST” on 11/08/2016 from the 4^th opposite party for an amount of Rs. 11,54,974/-  It had a warranty for 36 months from 11/08/2016.  The complainant paid the entire price on 10/08/2016 and wanted delivery on that day itself.  But the delivery was delayed as the vehicle was sent to some southern districts of Kerala from the place of manufacture.  The staff reset the meter and delivered the vehicle to him. 

          Within a week of its purchase, the complainant noticed defect in the steering as it was pulling the vehicle towards right and the steering was tight.  The manager of 4^th opposite party told the complainant that it was a common issue in that model and suggested that change of steering motor will solve the problem.  But even after repair and changing the steering motor, the problem persisted. 

          Then he asked the complainant to check the alignment and advised to interchange the tyres.  The complainant obeyed all the instructions given by the opposite parties; but the issues in the vehicle could not be resolved.

          On 10/10/2017, the Manager of 4^th opposite party asked the complainant to entrust the vehicle with them so that they can resolve the issue.  They had done wheel alignment and wheel balancing and returned the vehicle stating that the defects are rectified.  But the same problem continued and later he entrusted the vehicle with the 1^st opposite party, which is an authorised service centre of Hyundai.  They also did not take proper action and for long time the vehicle was with them.  They did not provide an alternate arrangement and the delay in delivery had caused huge loss to the complainant.  The defects mentioned in all the job cards are not properly attended and repaired by the opposite parties and it is a deficiency in service on their part.

          Several parts of the car are almost damaged due to rust as the parts are of inferior quality.  The complainant states that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect in the steering assembly as a whole.  The vehicle sold to the complainant was having manufacturing defect and the opposite party had used defective materials in manufacturing the car.  The opposite parties had not provided an effective and efficient service to the complainant during warranty period. 

The complainant had caused to issue registered Lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 25/11/2019 demanding the repair of the vehicle and to pay compensation; but they did not respond to it.

So this complaint is filed to direct the 1^st opposite party to return the vehicle immediately after making all necessary repairs free of cost and to pay 1 lakh as compensation towards loss due to the non-availability of the car during the marriage of the complainant.  Rs. 60,000/- towards non-delivery of vehicle after repair and 1 lakh for mental agony and sufferings of the complainant.  Further he claims Rs. 1,000/- per day from 17/01/2020 till return of the vehicle.  

2.   Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered and filed their version.  Even though 4^th opposite party appeared and filed vakalath, they did not file version.

3.   1^st opposite party in their version contended that the complainant had changed the original specification i.e. the Alloy wheels and modified the tyres of the vehicle and there is always a possibility of steering column getting damaged or the wheel pulling from the conversions made by changing the original machinery.  All the services are done to the satisfaction of the complainant and the company or the 1^st opposite party cannot be held responsible for the mistake of the complainant.

          The vehicle was entrusted to them for repair on 22/09/2019 and they did all rectifications.  The dealership of 1^st opposite party is closed from 12/03/2020 and they informed about this to the complainant.  After 2 months of its delivery, the complainant again approached them and they advised him to take the vehicle to the service centre where earlier repair was done.  On inspection, they found that the steering column mounting bolt which is mounted on “Bar Assembly – Cowl Cross Bar”, one of the bolt was welded which was making noise. 

          Welding of any bolt in the car is not authorised by Hyundai.  It indicates that the vehicle was given to a non-authorised service centre.  The 1^st opposite party had changed both the front doors of the vehicle under warranty on 13/11/2018.  They denied the allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party had provided their best service to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  The vehicle was entrusted to them for repair on 29/11/2019 and the complainant is not ready to take delivery of the vehicle alleging that there are various defects in the vehicle which have not been rectified and wants replacement of all parts.  The part which is altered i.e. Bar Assembly – Cowl Cross Bar cannot be replaced under warranty.  The Alloy Wheels are also altered by third parties.  If the issues are persisting, it is the fault of the complainant since the alterations are made by unauthorised persons.  The vehicle is lying in their garage without any service and the complainant has not given any approval to service the vehicle inspite of repeated calls.  As per the conditions in the Job card, the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 350/- per day amounting to Rs. 31,500/- as of 26/02/2020.  So the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost. 

4.   Version of opposite parties 2 & 3

      The entire complaint revolves around the allegation with respect to service/repair of the car and it is between the complainant and the dealers 1^st and 4^th opposite parties.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties operates with its dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and any issue at the time of retail sale or after sale service is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties being the manufacturer of Hyundai cars, their liability is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone.  There is no manufacturing defect in the steering wheel and the complainant has not sought any reliefs with regard to the steering wheel.  The 1^st and 4^th opposite parties have thoroughly inspected the vehicle and no issues were found in the steering assembly.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are impleaded with malafide intention and there is no cause of action against them.  The vehicle has been used extensively and on 29/11/2019 the mileage was 64495 KMs.  Complainant has not produced any evidence to show the manufacturing defect in the car.  The complainant has failed to show any deficiency on the part of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.

5.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the steering assembly of the vehicle?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.

6.   Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A21 were marked from his side.  Complainant filed IA 80(b)/20 for the appointment of an expert to inspect the vehicle and it was allowed.  The complainant filed IA 321/22 to issue summons and to examine the expert commissioner and it was allowed.  The Commissioner was examined as CW1 and the report was marked as Ext. C1.  Opposite parties did not file proof affidavit and their evidence was closed.  Complainant filed notes of argument.  Heard.

7.   Point No:1

      It is admitted that the complainant purchased a car CRETA 14 ORD BST from the 4^th opposite party on 11/08/2016 for an amount of Rs.11,54,974/-  Complainant’s grievance is that within one week of its purchase, he noticed a defect in the steering as it was pulling the vehicle towards right and the steering was tight.  He approached the 4^th opposite party and they advised to change the steering motor to solve the problem.  But even after repair and changing the steering motor, the problem persisted.  Even after repeatedly entrusting the vehicle to 1^st and 4^th opposite parties, the authorised service centres of Hyundai, the issue was not solved.  The vehicle was with the 1^st opposite party long time for repair which had caused huge loss to the complainant.  

8.   1^st opposite party in their version contended that they had rectified all the defects.  On inspecting the vehicle they found that the steering column mounting bolt (12mm) which is mounted on “Bar Assembly-Cowl Cross Bar”, one of the bolt was welded.  Welding of any bolt in the car is not authorised by Hyundai and it indicated that the vehicle was given to non-authorised service centre.  It cannot be replaced under warranty, further, the Alloy Wheels were also altered by third parties.  If the issues in the vehicle persisted, it is due to the fault of the complainant in making these alterations by unauthorised service centres.

9.   In order to prove his contention of manufacturing defect in the steering column, complainant filed an application to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle.  The Commissioner filed report which is marked as Ext. C1.  Further he was examined as CW1.

10. In Ext. C1 report, the Commissioner noted that “The steering column motor bolt is seen welded at the dash board support”.

          Eventhough he wanted to dismantle the dash board cover of the steering column to note the gravity of damage in the steering column, the 1^st opposite party objected this.  So he could not find out the entire damage to the steering column.  Further he reported as answer to question No: 1 that he could not drive the vehicle due to the defect in the steering column as it is not safe to drive the vehicle.  Further during cross examination, he deposed that (Page no: 3) “Alloy wheel മാറ്റിയതായി കാണാൻ കഴിഞ്ഞു.  അതുപോലെ company tyre അല്ല.  മാറ്റിയതാണ്..........  Tyre നും alloy wheel നും മാറ്റം വരുത്തിയാല്‍ steering column ത്തിന് മാറ്റം വരുമോ എന്ന ചോദിച്ചാല്‍ ഇല്ല”.  He added that “steering column defect proper maintenance ഇല്ലാത്തതുകൊണ്ടും driving ശൈലി കൊണ്ടും വരുമോ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ചാല്‍ ഇല്ല.  Manufacturing defect കൊണ്ട് വരാം”.  So the contention taken by the opposite party is not found to be correct.   

The assessment made by the Expert Commission is to rectify the damages is noted as answer to question no: 4. “Since the steering column motor bracket bolt is seen welded at the dashboard support, the steering column and bracket as such is to be replaced as the same cannot be welded or repaired”.  So the complainant has successfully proved the defect in the steering column.  Point no: 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.

11.    Points 2 to 4 are considered together

      The main issue with the complainant was steering column defect.  Commissioner also noted that many parts of the car got affected with rust.  Rusting and other problem like rat attack may be due to the keeping of the vehicle in the yard unattended for long time.  1^st Opposite party’s contention in this regard is that the vehicle was lying in their garage without any service as the complainant had not given approval to service the vehicle inspite of repeated calls.  But they did not file proof affidavit or adduce any evidence in support of this.

          During the pendency of this complaint, as per the direction of the Commission, the vehicle was repaired and handed over to the complainant.  Complainant’s counsel filed a memo to the effect that the car was repaired and handed over to the complainant on 29/01/2021 after its basic repairs.

          So it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 4^th opposite parties in not repairing the vehicle on a timely manner.  There was no effective or efficient repair and service of the vehicle even during the warranty period.  The recurring problems in the newly purchased vehicle had caused mental agony to the complainant and financial loss.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties being the manufacturers are also liable for any manufacturing defect and also for not complying the warranty obligations.

 So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.  Since the vehicle was already repaired and handed over to the complainant; only question is regarding the quantum of compensation to be awarded.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.

          We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay

1. Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service
2. Rs. 25,000/- for the mental agony and other inconveniences suffered by the complainant and
3. Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 06^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President                                              

                                                        Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member   

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant

Ext. A1   – Registration Certificate of KL-70-C-100 (Photocopy)

Ext. A2   – Bill dated 10/08/2016 (Original).

Ext. A3   – Customer Settlement Sheet dated 10/08/2016 (Original).

Ext. A4   – Service bill dated 17/08/2017 (Copy).

Ext. A5   – Invoice Summary.

Ext. A6   – Service Bill dated 07/02/2017 (Copy).

Ext. A7   – Cash Invoice dated 07/02/2017 (Original).

Ext. A8   – Bill for Service dated 10/10/2017 (Copy).

Ext. A9   – E-mail dated 10/10/2017 (copy).

Ext. A10 – Invoice Summary dated 20/10/2017 (Original).

Ext. A11 – Complaint put in the facebook page of the opposite parties.

Ext. A12 – Invoice Summary dated 20/11/2017 (Original).

Ext. A13 – E-mail communication dated 12/01/2018.

Ext. A14 – Invoice Summary dated 29/03/2018 (Copy).

Ext. A15 – Repair Order dated 17/09/2018 (Original).

Ext. A16 – Customer Reminder Letter dated 23/09/2019 (Original).

Ext. A17 – Invoice Summary dated 23/09/2019 (Original).

Ext. A18 – Repair Order dated 07/11/2019 (Copy).

Ext. A19 – Lawyer notice along with Postal receipts and A/D Cards dated   

                 25/11/2019.

Ext. A20 – Lawyer Notice dated 09/03/2020 (Original).

Ext. A21 – Reply Notice along with postal receipt and AD Card dated

                 19/03/2020.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost- Rs. 20,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.