DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Ankur Sharma s/o Sh. C.L. Sharma, resident of H.No. 29, Laxmi Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur Punjab.

              ---Complainant

Vs

1.   Hyundai Motor India Limited, Baani Building, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

2.   M/s KLG Hyundai Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 181/3B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160 002, through its M.D.

3.   Sh. Hitesh Sachdeva, Service Manager, M/s KLG Hyundai Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 181/3B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160 002

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA             PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Vishal Gupta, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        The instant complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party for sale of an allegedly damaged car.

          The complaint has stated that he bought a brand new Hyundai i20 car from Opposite Party No. 2 on 29.11.2011 as per invoice at Annexure C-1. Thereafter, on 24.1.2012, the Complainant got the horn of the vehicle replaced with a new one from a local shopkeeper. The Complainant has also stated that when the mechanic opened the front bumper to replace the horn, it was noticed that the rod behind the bumper and radiator was badly damaged. The Complainant immediately contacted Opposite Party No. 2 to enquire about the said damage. He was told that it was not possible without any sign of accident on the front bumper from outside that the inner rod and radiator could be damaged. As the staff of Opposite Party No. 2 did not redress his grievance, the Complainant exchanged a number of e-mails with the officials of Opposite Party No.1 to bring the defect to their notice. He was advised to get his vehicle repaired under insurance, as no damage to the vehicle was found at the time of 1^st free service.

          Since the grievance of the Complainant was not redressed by the Opposite Parties despite various visits, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the cost of the vehicle along with insurance and other charges along with interest and compensation.

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.        The Opposite Party No.1 has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is frivolous and formulated on wrong and misleading facts. The Complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle i.e. defect in the rod behind bumper and radiator, but there is no technical expert opinion on record to prove the same. The Complainant is infact trying to take advantage of his own wrong. Admittedly the Complainant has taken his vehicle to an unauthorized local mechanic and there is every likelihood that while carrying out the fitting work the unauthorized local mechanic may have made changes for fitting the accessories. Also, at the time the 1^st service was done there was no technical or mechanical damage found in the vehicle, which had been delivered to the Complainant to his fullest satisfaction. The alleged damage goes beyond logic as it could easily have been noticed on opening the bonnet and hence, the story of the Complainant is totally fabricated and baseless. If there had been any defect in the car, it would not have been in a running condition. Opposite Party No.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Surpeme Court in Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Another, I (2006) CPJ 3 S.C., wherein it was held that “held that even where defects in various parts of a car are established, direction for replacement of the car would not be justified”. “Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for”. Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that in terms of the warranty policy there can be no refund of the purchase price of the car or replacement because of some defects which are repairable.   

          On merits, Opposite Party No.1 has denied that an old car was sold to the Complainant, as alleged. It has been reiterated that the car was opened by an unauthorized local mechanic in the absence of Opposite Parties even though it was covered under the insurance policy. The said vehicle was allegedly damaged because of the negligence on the part of the Complainant himself, who is now trying to fasten his own wrong on the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant was infact advised to contact the local mechanic to find out about the damage caused. It has also been reiterated that no defect was noticed at the time of 1^st free service. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 have filed joint reply. It has been stated that all allegations made by the Complainant are totally false and vague. No defect was pointed out at the time of first free service and only after plying the vehicle for two months, the Complainant is now alleging that the vehicle is accidented and not new. Also in case there is any manufacturing defect, only Opposite Party No.1 would be liable. Further, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have stated that the Complainant has himself stated in the complaint that he had got some accessories fitted from outside and there is every possibility that the damage might have been caused by the mechanic of the shop keeper.

          On merits, Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 have admitted sale of vehicle to the Complainant, but have denied that the car sold is old, accidented or damaged. If this had been the case, the relevant information could have been obtained from the Registering Authority whether the car was earlier registered or not. It has been stated that Opposite Party No. 2 is a company of repute and Opposite Party No. 3 is dealing with customers for so many years. Denying all other allegations, Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

5.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.        We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record.

7.        The allegations of the Complainant relate to a broken rod behind the radiator and bumper of the car sold to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties on 29.11.2011. The Complainant has alleged that the defect was only found when he went to a local shopkeeper for replacing the horn. The Opposite Parties in reply have categorically stated that the alleged defect could have been visible in the car even by opening the bonnet. Also, the bumper of the car is totally unharmed. Hence, it is evident that the damage has been caused to the vehicle by the mechanic at the time of putting the accessories after removing the bumper. Opposite Parties have also stated that the Complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to show that the vehicle purchased by him was sold in a damaged state.

8.        The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case C.N. Anantharam v. Fiat India Ltd., 2011 (1) SCC 460, has stated that refund of a vehicle can be given only if there is technical expert who has stated that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle.

9.        When the present case is analyzed in the aforesaid backdrop, it cannot be said that the complainant has been able to satisfactorily prove his case of the car suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. There is no proof on record to show whether the damage caused to the vehicle is prior to the date of sale or after the date of sale. The contentions of all the parties seem to hold the other responsible for the damage. Merely because the car had been taken to the workshop of the Opposite Party No.2 or because a number of letters/complaints had been addressed to various functionaries and authorities of the opposite party-manufacturing company, it will not by itself amount to manufacturing defect. It needs mention here that the car has also been taken to a local shopkeeper for replacement of horn. The defect was allegedly detected when the bumper was taken out to place the horn.

10.       The demand for refund of the amount of the car is too far fetched for a small damaged part and is hence declined. However, taking a lenient view and giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the Complainant, we allow the present complaint to the extent that the Opposite Parties replace the damaged rod in the car with a new one, free of cost. No labour charges be taken from the Complainant for the fitting. No costs. This order shall be complied by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of its receipt.

11.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd December, 2012.                                            

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

 MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER