State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Oberai Hyundai vs R.P. Mamgain And Another on 17 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 68 / 2010
M/s Oberai Hyundai
A unit of Dev Bhoomi Automobile Pvt. Ltd.
Mangalore Road, Roorkee
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. R.P. Mamgain S/o Sh. Magnanand
R/o Vidhya Vihar Colony, Bharav Mandir Road
P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited
Regional Office North
A-30, Commemorative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road
New Delhi - 110044
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. V.K. Srivastava, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 17/10/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 30.01.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 349 of 2008. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant and respondent No. 2 - opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent No. 1 - complainant within one month from the date of the order.2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a Hyundai Santro G.L. car from the opposite party No. 1 on 28.11.2007. The said car was allotted registration No. UK08-K-8341. It was alleged that since the date of its purchase, the said car is not functioning properly and there is manufacturing defect in the car. It was also alleged that the defects in the vehicle were brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties, but the same were not removed. It was further alleged that the vehicle went defective again and again and the defects in the vehicle were not cured / removed by the opposite parties. Thus, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellant - opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant used to keep his vehicle idle for long without using the same or starting the same, which resulted in discharge of the battery; that as a goodwill gesture, the battery of the vehicle was replaced free of cost; that the complainant did not adhere to the required instructions; that on check-up of the vehicle, the same was found in perfect condition; that the defects in the vehicle were duly removed / rectified by them and that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
4. The respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2 also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it has got no concern with the matter in issue and the repair work, if any, in the vehicle is to be carried out by the appellant - opposite party No. 1.
5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 3 30.01.2010 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. The material on record shows that the battery of the vehicle has been changed by the appellant, which fact has been admitted by the appellant in its written statement filed before the District Forum. The appellant has also stated in its written statement that the central locking system of the vehicle has been changed. The papers on record show that the vehicle in question has repeatedly been taken to the workshop of the appellant for removal of defects and there is an endorsement in the job card dated 14.01.2008 (Paper No. 41) that the battery of the vehicle is to be replaced. In the job card dated 02.03.2008 (Paper No. 42), it has been mentioned that the battery is not working properly. Certain other defects have also been pointed out in the vehicle in other job cards available on record. Thus, it is quite clear that there have been defects in the vehicle and the vehicle was not functioning properly and for removal of the defects, the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the appellant for necessary work therein.
8. The appellant has not denied the fact that there was battery and central locking problem in the vehicle and that the vehicle was not taken to its workshop time and again for removal of the defects occurring in the vehicle. It is true that the defects in the vehicle have been removed, but there can be no doubt that the complainant had to suffer mental agony on account of defects in the vehicle occurring time and again and to repeatedly take the vehicle to the workshop of 4 the appellant and thus, the District Forum was justified in allowing the consumer complaint.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd., Regional Officer, Karnal and another; 2012 (2) CPR 28 (NC), wherein it has been held that it is for the complainant to establish loss suffered by him on account of any defect in the goods supplied or deficiency in any service. In the present case, as is stated above, the vehicle was time and again taken to the workshop of the appellant for removal of the defects and hence in this situation, it can not be said that the complainant has not suffered any loss or mental agony. Learned counsel for the appellant cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), wherein it was held that unless it is shown that the vehicle was sold by manufacturer to dealer on principal to principal basis, the manufacturer is liable for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the dealer is not liable for the same. In the instant case, the question is not that of manufacturing defect in the vehicle, but the question is that the vehicle has repeatedly been taken by the complainant to the workshop of the appellant in connection with removal of defects and the said fact has also not been denied by the appellant.
10. So far as the quantum is concerned, the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, which in our view, is on the higher side and in our considered opinion, the same need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, the appeal is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be modified as such.
511. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 30.01.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent No. 1 - complainant. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K