District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.340/2019.
Date of Institution: 11.07.2019
Date of Order: 30.11.2022
Mrs. Mamta Bajaj W/o Shri Rajeev Bajaj, R/o House No. 2241, Ground floor, Sector-8, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Mahadev Motors Pvt. Ltd., 13/3, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad through its Managing Director/Director(s)/General Manager.
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No. M-6, Ist floor, Uppal Plaza, Jsola Vihar, New Delhi – 110025 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Manish Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. H.K.Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1
Sh. Rohan Khanna, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Hyundai i20 car bearing its Regn. NO. HR-29AL-1450 from opposite party No.1 on 30.12.2015. The above said car was manufactured in the month of December, 2015 and he same was purchased by complainant from opposite party No.1 in the month of February 2016. The millage of the above said car was apprx. 65000 km. at the time of above said incident. The above said car was got serviced on time as per the schedule of the opposite parties. On 21.5.2018 at about 8:30 p.m. when the husband of the complainant was driving the said car, then the above said car caught fire and within few seconds, the above said car got burnt. It was the grace of god, the husband of the complainant saved himself anyhow but he was suffering from great mental trauma and agony. The husband of the complainant informed the local police about the said incident, but at that time the above said car was in ashes. The complainant had made a complaint to the police and on the basis of which the police of Police Post, Ector-8, Faridabad, lodged D.D.No. 18 dated 21.05.2018 regarding above said incident. Infact, thee was manufacturing defect in the above said car, hence the complainant informed and contacted the manufacturer of the said car i.e opposite party No.2, they instructed the complainant to take the vehicle/car in question to the workshop of opposite party No.1, being authorized dealer of opposite party No.2. The complainant immediately took the said car with the opposite party No.1 and even today the said car was lying in the workshop of opposite party No.1. As and when the complainant approached opposite parties, then they always demanded a huge amount from the complainant wrongly and illegally for which opposite parties were not entitled because there was a manufacturing defect in the said car and due to the said reason the car caught fire. The complainant was instructed by opposite
party No.2 to take the car with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 in collusion with opposite party No.2 had prepared a false report with the false and base reason that the cause of alleged fire was due to external factors but the opposite parties had failed to explain what was the external factor. The opposite parties were trying to escape from their legal liability and trying to cheat the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) repair and deliver the above said Hyundai i20 car of the complainant without claiming any amount from him, being manufacturing defect or to compensate the complainant to the actual cost of the above said car alongwith the interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its payment till its realization
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the vehicle No. HR29AL1450 Model – Hyundai i20 purchased form opposite party NO.1 on 30.12.2015 . Complainant arrived with burned condition of the vehicle on 24,05.2018 after running of 65000 km. at the time of above incident occurred and vehicle under reference was running with no insurance and services being conducted by herself session by session at Prestige Hyudai by pass road, Faridabad and complainant herself responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of vehicle under reference and after the detailed discussions by the opposite party No.1 with the complainant, inspection was got conducted as per approval given by the complainant as well as estimate for repair was given to the
complainant but the complainant did not turn up due to the failure of no insurance, thereby complainant did not pick the vehicle under reference inspite of several reminders and requests being conveyed to the complainant session by session, neither complainant appeared in person nor complainant took the vehicle which was still lying in the garage of opposite party No.1 and for that opposite party No.1 had served a legal notice to the complainant calling upon to take the vehicle and opposite party No.1 was entitled to charge parking charges at the rate of Rs.350/ day from the date when vehicle arrived & complainant did not pay any attention to the legitimate requests of the opposite party No.1 and on the other side vehicle under reference being categorically and specifically inspected and thoroughly checked b6y the Hyundai Motors India Limited on 14.06.2018, where in it was defined as under:- There was no fu8el leakage and no electrical failure as observed by technical expert team and there was no manufacturing defect observed in the vehicle under reference and the cause of alleged fire in the vehicle under reference was due to external factors and there was no apprehension of the failures of the product quality. It was submitted that we being a dealer of Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Running business in the name and style of M/s. Mahadev Motors Pvt. Ltd. Were complying all the rules and regulations famed under the code of conduct/service manual of HNIL and there was no violation as such being alleged by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that that the present was liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. It was submitted that under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act,1986, complainant was required to be filed within
period of two years. It was submitted that the present complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as the complaint was filed only in August 2019 i.e. beyond two years from the date purchase of the car i.e. 30.12.2015, thus the complaint was barred by limitation. It was admitted on the part of the complainant that the subject vehicle was purchased in 30.12.2015 and the alleged incident was occurred on 21.5.2018. It was submitted that as per warranty terms mentioned in the owner’s manual, the warranty exists for a period of 24 months from the date of delivery irrespective of mileage. It was clear from above stated facts that no cause of action exists in favour of complainant as the vehicle was already out of warranty. As per available records, prior to alleged incident the vehicle was last reported on 04.12.2017 at the running mileage of 66360 kms. For accidental repairs which proves complainant was negligent in the use of the car. It was submitted that accidents adversely affect the performance of the car and were a cause of the negligence on the part of the consumer i.e. the complainant and therefore, the answering opposite party could not be made liable for the same. The accidental repairs and the damage due to negligence of owner were not covered under warranty and could not be said to be manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further submitted that HMIL had not received any consideration from the complainant, all monies were paid to the dealer/opposite party No.1, hence, there was no privity qua HMIL and complainant and dispute was purely inter se dealer and complainant. The answering opposite party being a manufacture of a car had no role to play in the retail or service or repairing of the car unless it comes under the warranty obligations. The answering opposite party’s relationship with opposite party No.1 was one of the principal-to –principal basis and not as a principal to agent, hence answering opposite party could not be held liable for acts & omission of dealer. It was pertinent to note that at the date of the incident, the
car had run of 66,360 kms, which would had not been possible in the case of a manufacturing defect in the car. It was submitted that defects in the car, if any, developed over time and due to the negligence of the driver itself. The complaint was liable to be dismissed on the sole basis that the car had run more than 66,000 kms. The complaint was liable to be dismissed on the fact that the car had been run for more than 26,000 kms. lone. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Mahadev Motors and another with the prayer to: a) repair and deliver the above said Hyundai i20 car of the complainant without claiming any amount from him, being manufacturing defect or to compensate the complainant to the actual cost of the above said car alongwith the interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its payment till its realization b)pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Mamta Bajaj,, Ex.C-1 – certificate of registration of motor, Ex.C-2 – report, Ex.C-3 – legal notice, Ex.C-4 – reply to legal notice, Ex.C-5 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Deepak Rana,, Working as Manager Mahadev Motors Pvt. Ltd. 13/3,
Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 – legal notice, Ex.R-3 – letter dated 01.03.2019, Ex.R-4 – email, Ex.R-5 – estimate,, Ex.R-6 – photographs, Ex.R-7 – bill/cash memo, Ex.R-8 – letter dated 27 November,2018,.
As per the evidence of opposite party No.2, Ex.DW2/A – affidavit of Hemant Makkar, Deputy Manager, Legal & Secretarial with Hyundai Motor India Limited, having its office at 2nd & 6th floor, corporate one (Baani Building), plot NO.2, Commercial centre, Jasola, new Delhi,, Ex.DW2/B – Hyundai Warranty policy,
7. In this complaint, the complainant has filed the complaint with the prayer of repair and deliver the above said Hyundai i20 car of the complainant without claiming any amount from him, being manufacturing defect or to compensate the complainant to the actual cost of the above said car alongwith the interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its payment till its realization.
The complainant is the registered owner of a Hyundai i20 car bearing regn. No. HR-29AL-1450 which was purchased from opposite party No.1 on 30.12.2015. On 21.5.2018 at about 8.30p.m the car in question got burnt. As per the affidavit of Shri Deepak Rana, Manager, Mahadev Motors Pvt. Ltd. In which it has been mentioned that they are only the dealer and the allegations levelled for the manufacturing defects which belongs to opposite party No.2 i.e. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Opposite party No.2 has also filed the affidavit of Shri Hemant Makkar, Deputy Manager, Legal & Secretariat with Hyundai Motor India Limited and also give the warranty instructions.
Hyundai Motors India Ltd. has also filed a revision petition No.19 of 2020 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redresal commission, Haryana, Panchkula in which impurged order dated 18.9.2019 passed by the
learned District Forum, Faridabad is set aside for rall intents and purposes, present revision petition stands allowed subject to depositing of Rs.5000/- as of costs to be paid by the present revisionist to the complainant before learned District Forum, Faridabad. The matter is remitted back to the district Forum, Faridabad to decide the complaint on merit after affording an opportunity to present revisionist to file its written statement and to lead its respective evidence.
8. An application was filed by the complainant on 13.09.2022 to allow the surveyor/expert to inspect the vehicle which was allowed and the expert report was filed by Shri C.K.Bhatia, who is a Automobile Engineer in which he has stated and confirmed the allegations of the complainant. On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.2 i.e Hyundai Motor India Ltd. also filed the instructions of the warranty. After going through the above warranty, the car in question was out of warranty and the complainant has used the car in question for 2 years and it is already run 650000 km. No doubt, the car in question was out of warranty but the allegations levelled by the complainant confirmed by the Expert i.e. Shri C.K.Bhatia. We are of the opinion that manufacturer cannot blamed in toto but Hyundai is a big brand. For the good gesture of the company they should be penalized little when the complainant had paid in lacs for a good car. The defects in the car shows the deficiency on their part.
9. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite party No.2 to give the discount of 33% on the dealer selling price of the same brand i.e i20 on the new car, subject to return the old car, salvage and other relevant document to Hyundai Motor India Ltd. In case of HPA, the complainant is liable to pay the amount and he will also give Form 35 with the salvage for this
discount . There are no order as to costs. Opposite party No.1 is authorized dealer opposite party No.1 can charge the handling charges form the opposite party No.2, if any. Opposite party No.1 is at liberty to file complaint against opposite party No.2 for their handling charges. It is principal-to principal is the authorized dealer of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 30.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
