CC No.1562.2016

Filed on 28.11.2016  

Disposed on 31.12.2018

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1562/2016                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

PRESENT:

 Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

         PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                       MEMBER

                                          V/S

ORDER

BY SMT. L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 28.11.2016 under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to handover a new car without any issues or to pay a sum of Rs.2,68,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- being the down payment made by the Complainant, Rs.1,00,000/- being the installment amount paid by the Complainant, Rs.25,000/- being the value of the old card; Rs.10,000/- for exchange bonus and Rs.33,000/- booking advance amount) and grant a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- being the damages, mental agony, torture, conveyance and to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the interest amount in all amounting to Rs.6,18,000/- to the Complainant and such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Complainant has purchased the Hyundai Car in an exchange offer from the 1^st Opposite Party bearing Registration No.KA.04.MQ.8264 vide Engine No.G3HAFM355144, Chassis No.MALA151ALFM394092 Make of the vehicle Hyundai Motors Limited, Model Description Eon-D-Lite+AC, Year of Manufacture 2015 by paying a sum of Rs.3,67,963/- i.e., after deducting the old car value of Rs.25,000/- and exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-) the said amounts, the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as down payment; Rs.30,000/-+Rs.3,000/- by cash being the booking amount and the Complainant has availed vehicle Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on EMI basis from Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited, Bangalore.  After taking delivery of the said vehicle from the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party has given three free service coupons to the Complainant.  At the time of first service, the job card of the said vehicle did not open, thereafter the Complainant enquired with the Service Engineer of the 2^nd Opposite Party, the said Service Engineer informed the Complainant that the same chassis number has come in another person’s name at West Bengal.  Hence the Job Card is not opened. 

3. Once again the Complainant submitted her message to the 2^nd Opposite Party, they have given e-mail reply “At the outset, they regret the inconvenience caused to him.  After giving the said e-mail reply by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the Complainant went for second free service.  At that time they given reply regarding Hyundai Eon Car reported to the service center for second free service reg.Num#KA.04.MQ.8264 on 29.09.2016 that they could not open the repair order due to some issue on GDMS.  So job was not carried out regarding this they have forward the details to HMIL and the issue will be sorted out within 15 days and as soon as the concern resolves and also stated that-they will arrange the pickup & drop for the service and also mentioned in the said message-the first service is also not done due to the same issue”.  Hence the said issue is not solved till date, since the date of purchase of the above said vehicle/ car and the issue is continuing without solving the said issue by the Opposite Parties.    Due to the negligence attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is suffering both mental and monetary loss and the Complainant is mentally harassed by the Opposite Parties without providing sufficient service to her new car purchased by availing the Vehicle Loan and the Complainant used to pay the monthly EMI till date she had paid approximately a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to her Financier.  Even after investing huge money for buying such a vehicle, she cannot get the service benefits and now the Complainant gets doubt that whether the said car is new or old vehicle/car, because the same chassis number is available in the West Bengal State in another persons’ name.  It clearly goes to show that the Opposite Parties have cheated the Complainant by supplying the said old car.  Hence this complaint.

4.   Even though, notice was served on the Opposite Party No.4, the 4^th Opposite Party fails to put their appearance, hence placed ex-parte. 

5.    In response to the notice, the Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In the version of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 pleaded that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and false and not maintainable in law or on facts. The complaint is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.  This Opposite Party No.1 & 2 denies all the allegations as mentioned in the above complaint as false.  The Complainant purchased a Hyundai Eon-D-Lite car from their dealership on 11.12.2015.  Vide Car bearing register No.KA-04-MQ-8264.   After the due delivery of the alleged vehicle for the First time i.e., on 13.04.2016, the vehicle as reported for first free service at a mileage reading of 2,295 kms.  After receiving the alleged vehicle for service, the Opposite Party’s service staff has attempted to open the Repair order and even after much efforts they are unable to generate the Repair order because on “Prior to this date, the Opposite Party No.4 they have opened the Job card on 29.12.2015 itself by entering wrongly, in Global Dealer Manufacturer System hence for this sole reason this Opposite Party’s staff unable to open the Repair order.  Once again on 29.09.2016, the vehicle was reported for second service with an odometer meter Reading of 5,258 kms.  At this point Opposite Party’s service staff entered an record at this juncture, this Opposite Party’s service executives informed, the Complainant that, the 2^nd service for the alleged car was not due at that point time, hence its premature, further their service staff requested the Complainant to visit the workshop on completion of 12 months from the date of sale or after reaching a mileage of 10000 kms., whichever is earlier.   Subsequently this Opposite Parties have intimated the wrong entries made by the Opposite Party No.4 to Hundai Motors India because the G.D.M.S controlled by manufacturer, thereafter the H.M.I.L has done necessary changes made G.D.M.S thereafter on 21.10.2016, the Repair Order for the first free service was opened in G.D.M.S. 

6.  The main allegation of the Complainant is that the Repair Order for her car did not open as there was a wrong entry made by M/s Durga Hyundai and further she alleges that her car was not serviced due to the said issue.  It’s relevant to note that, meanwhile, steps has been taken to correct the G.D.M.S details and the same was successfully done.  Thereafter the 3^rd Opposite Party handed over a letter dt.03.10.2016 to the Complainant stating that action is taken to resolve the issue and necessary corrections made in the G.D.M.S, and the Repair order for the 1^st free service of the Complainant’s car was issued.  Therefore nothing more the Complainant can ask for and the above complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.  The car was delivered to the Complainant is a Brand New vehicle, and in perfect road worthy condition and there is absolutely no defect in the car.  There was typographical error committed by M/s Durga Hyundai in which this Opposite Party has no role to play.  The allegation of the Complainant that they sold an old vehicle is utterly false and the Complainant has levelled this allegation only due to GDMS issue which is resolved after intervention of H.M.I.L.    The Opposite Party is not responsible in any way to compensate the Complainant and there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant.

7.  The 3^rd Opposite Party filed his separate version pleaded that the complaint is frivolous, misconceived and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts.  The complaint is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed in limine.  The Complainant purchased a Hyundai Eon car manufactured by Hyundai Motor India Limited, through the 1^st Opposite Party which is its authorized dealer on 11.12.2015.  The vehicle was reported for first free service on 13.04.2016 at a mileage of 2295 kms.  The vehicle was serviced without opening the Repair Order.  The vehicle was reported once again on 29.09.2016 at a mileage of 5258 kms.  Only an inventory was made at that point of time by the service advisor, as the service was not due at that point time, the Complainant was advised to visit the workshop on completion of 12 months from the date of sale or after reaching a mileage of 10000 kms., whichever is earlier.  On 21.10.2016, the Repair Order for the first free service was opened in GDMS after resolving the issue with the GDMS, because of a wrong RO entered by M/s Durga Hyundai of West Bengal.  After cancelling the wrong entry, the entry for the 1^st free service of the Complainant’s vehicle was entered through the 1^st Opposite Party.

8.  The Repair Order for his car did not open as there was a wrong entry made by M/s Durga Hyundai and the Complainant alleges that his car was not serviced due to the said issue.  Subsequently action has been taken to correct the GDSM and the same was successfully done.  The 3^rd Opposite Party who is the ASPM of Hyundai Motor India Limited, handed over a letter dated 03.10.2016 to the Complainant stating that action is taken to resolve the issue and in the same spirit action was taken to correct the GDMS successfully and RO for the 1^st free service of the Complainant’s car was issued through the 1^st Opposite Party.    The car was delivered to the Complainant in a perfect condition and there is absolutely no defect in the car.  No repairs were reported at the time of first free service on 13.04.2016, vide an RO dated.21.10.2016.  There was an error committed by                        M/s Durga Hyundai in which Hyundai Motor India Limited has no role to play.  However swift action was taken to rectify the GDMS and in fact GDMS was rectified and the RO for Complainant’s car was also issued.  The allegation of the Complainant that she has been sold an old vehicle is utterly false and the Complainant has levelled this allegation only due to GDMS issue which is resolved now.  The Complainant is now free to approach the dealer for his 2^nd free service as and when it becomes due.  The liability of Hyundai Moto India Limited, is limited to warranty obligations and nothing more.  On the ground that the 3^rd Opposite Party is arrayed in his individual capacity.  Though the complainant states that the 3^rd Opposite Party is working as ASPM with Hyundai Motor India Limited, the arrayal of the 3^rd Opposite Party in his individual capacity is a patent error and the above complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

9.   The Complainant, Smt.Gayathrinath Pinjala filed her affidavit by way of evidence and closed her side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2, the affidavit of Sri.Narasimhan G.N, Deputy General Manger Admin has been filed.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.3, the affidavit of Sri.Eshwar Babu M.U, Area Parts and Service Manager has been filed.  Heard arguments of both parties.

  10.   The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

 11.    Our findings on the above points are:-

                   POINT (1):- Negative

                   POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

12.     POINT NO.1:   By looking into the allegations made in the complaint as well as version of the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that the Complainant has purchased a Hyundai Eon-D-Lite+AC Car from the 1^st Opposite Party on 11.12.2015, car bearing Registration No.KA.04.MQ.8264. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed his sworn testimony, in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and in support of his sworn testimony, he has produced copy of proposal receipt, copy of debit note, copy of cheque, copy of receipt, copy of retail Invoice, copy of loan agreement, copy of free service coupons, copy of vehicle record sheet, copy of customer ID form.  By looking into these documents, it is not in dispute that the Complainant purchased a Hyndai Eon-D-Lite+AC car from Opposite Party on 11.12.2015.  The car bearing registration No.KA.04.MQ.8264.   The Complainant purchased car for Rs.3,67,963/- (i.e., deducting the old car value of Rs.25,000/- and exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-) after deducting the above said amounts, the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as down payment, Rs.30,000/- +3,000/ by cash and he availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on EMI basis from Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited, Bangalore.   At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, the 1^st Opposite Party has given free service coupons to the Complainant.  At the time of first service the job card of the said vehicle did not open.  The Serviceman informed the Complainant that the same chassis number has come in another person’s name at West Bengal.  Hence the Job Card is not opened.  The Complainant informed 2^nd Opposite Party also.  The 2^nd Opposite Party replied through email stating to resolve the problems.  After that, the Complainant went for second free service.  But Opposite Parties could not open the repair order due to some issue on GDMS (HMIL software) and informed to the Complainant they forwarded details to HMIL and the issue will be sorted out within 15 days.  But that issue is not solved.  Due to the negligence attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is suffering both mental and mandatory loss.

13.  The defence of the Opposite Parties are that the Complaint is frivolous, misconceived and has the formulated on wrong and misleading facts.   The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 after delivery of said vehicle for the first time i.e., 13.04.2016, the vehicle was reported for first free service at a mileage of 2,295 kms.  After receiving the alleged vehicle for service, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2’s staff have attempted to open the Repair order.  Evenafter much efforts they ae unable to generate the repair order because “Prior to this date, the Opposite Party No.4 have opened the Job card on 29.12.2015 itself by entering wrongly/incorrectly. Once again on 29.09.2016, the vehicle was reported for second service with an odometer meter Reading of 5,258 kms.  the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that, the 2^nd service for the alleged car was not due at that point of time, hence its premature, further requested the Complainant to visit the workshop on completion of 12 months from the date of sale or after reaching a mileage of 10000 kms., whichever is earlier.   Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3 have after intimation to Opposite Party No.4 the necessary changes made G.D.M.S thereafter on 21.10.2016, the Repair Order for the first free service was opened in G.D.M.S.    In support of their defence, Sri.Narasimhan G.N, Deputy General Manager Admin of Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 and Sri.Eshwar Babu M.U area parts and Service Manager of Opposite Party No.3 have been filed their affidavit.  In their sworn testimony, they have reiterated the same and filed their version and affidavit. 

14.  With this argument nodbout the Complainant purchased car with Opposite Party, the Complainant herself pleaded that repair order for her car did not open as there was a wrong entry made by M/s Durga Hyundai, further she alleges that her car was not serviced due to the said issue, steps has been taken by the Opposite Parties to correct the GDMS details and the same was successfully done.  On 03.10.2016 the Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.3 handed over a letter to Complainant that action is taken to resolve the issue and necessary corrections made in the GDMS and the repair order for the 1^st free service of the car was issued.  The car was delivered to the Complainant is a brand new vehicle and in perfect road worthy conditions and there is absolutely no defect in the car.  Due to typographical error committed by Opposite Party No.4 the issue arises.  There is no fault on Opposite Parties.  It is not proper to accept the argument put forth by the Complainant.  As rightly argued by the Complainant though the Opposite Parties are resolve the issues the Complainant not satisfied with that.  There is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative. 

  15. POINT No.2:- In view of the finding on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 31^st day of December 2018)

           MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT      

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Smt.Gayathrinath Pinjala, who being Complainant has filed her affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Advocate for Complainant:

1. Copy of Proposal Receipt.
2. Copy of Debit Note.
3. Copy of cheque.
4. Copy of receipt.
5. Copy of Retail Invoice.
6. Copy of loan agreement.
7. Copy of free service coupons.
8. Copy of vehicle record sheet.
9. Copy of customer ID form.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.Narasimhan G.N, Deputy General Manager Admin of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 by way of affidavit.
2. Sri.Eshwar Babu, Area Parts and Service Manager of Opposite Party No.3 by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                                                           NIL

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT