National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. vs M/S. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. on 29 November, 2007
NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Revision Petition No.958 OF 2007 (Against the order dated 14.02.2007 in Appeal No. 15/2007 of the State Commission, Delhi) M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Through its authorized signatory, Mr. Abhijit Kumar ( Legal & Secretarial) A-30. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 Petitioner Vs. 1. M/s. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Mr. Sunny Malik, S/o Sh. Kamal Malik, G-1/16, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002. 2. M/s. Rama Motors (P) Ltd., A2/12, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110 029. Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Bhatnagar and Ms. Anisha Singh, Advocates For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Dilpreet Singh, Advocate. Dated the 29th November , 2007 . O R D E R
M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT.
The question which arises for consideration in this case is if a luxury car, namely, Accent Car CRD Diesel Model, gives trouble within one or two months of its purchase, would the consumer be satisfied with such a car? Whether the multi-national company manufacturing such a car, is justified in not replacing the car or refunding purchase price and instead engaging in protracted litigation?
In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. Further, in such cases, the manufacturing Company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power.
Further, a person who purchases a vehicle, maybe a luxury Accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied, if it is a defective vehicle. That the defect may not be a major one but the consumer loses satisfaction of having a new car. That loss of satisfaction would be much more in a case when the person buys the vehicle with his hard-earned money.
Unfortunately, we have not developed the tendency of accepting the defects or defaults. By some measure or means, the tendency to accept the defects or defaults is required to be encouraged. Otherwise, delay in disposal of such cases defeats the rights and the consumer gets frustrated. On occasions, litigation is dragged on for taking undue advantage of delay in disposal.
In this case, at the time of admission hearing of the Revision Petition, notice was issued to the Respondent/Complainant. After hearing, the parties on 8th May, 2007, the following interim order was passed:
Undisputedly, all the multi-national companies have adopted aggressive marketing for the sale of vehicles. Unfortunately, we have developed a practice / tendency of not admitting the defects in the vehicle and not replacing the same without contest. In other countries, even if there is aggressive marketing, defective vehicles are easily replaced. That practice is required to be adopted, at least, by the big companies like the Petitioner herein. Instead of disputing the undisputed facts, the Companies should resolve the matter by replacing the vehicles.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent states that the Complainant is not in a position to use the car and is lying at their premises. He further states that it is open to the Petitioner to take delivery of the said car. If the Petitioner is prepared to take back the possession of the car then it would be handed over, after taking proper receipt from the authorized representative, after reading the milometer.
Hence, admit. Notice to the Respondent returnable on 26th September, 2007. Meantime, execution of the impugned order is stayed on the condition that the Petitioner shall deposit, in all, Rs.4 lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs) before this Commission within a period of four weeks from today. It would be open to the Complainant to withdraw the same by furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
Dasti in addition.
Thereafter, in pursuance of the said order, the Petitioner took back the possession of the Car, and, in all, deposited a sum of Rs.4 lakh. That amount is withdrawn by the Complainant at the same time.
Facts:
It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner purchased the car on 31.12.2004. Thereafter, on 1.2.2005, there was the first service after running the car for 2,265 kms. At that stage it was noted in the service card.
Customers request:
Fuel leaking Brac .
Spaic M/W Second service was on 22.3.2005 after running the car for 6,133 kms.
Customers request:
White smoke.
Similarly, 29.3.2005 again the car was referred for manufacturing defect. There is a letter dated 29.3.2005 written by M/s.Rama Hundai to the Complainant, to the following effect:
This is with reference our earlier letter dated 27.3.2005 regarding your complaint against vehicle No.DL9CH1975 for Balck Smoke coming from silencer. That had been rectified. A team from HMIL had inspected your vehicle and as per the diagnoses some carbon deposit found with injection system thats why smoke was coming. We have also informed you that engine of your vehicle had not open only fuel injection system cleaning work done. Your vehicle is lying ready. Kindly take delivery as your earlier.
Thereafter, on 6.9.2005, again the car was taken, after running the car for 18,460 kms. (p.43).
Customers request:
Running Repair Others / Check black smoke coming Diesel smell / Check smell In the complaint it is stated that after inspection by the Petitioners engineer and the dealer, the Complainant was informed that there was trouble with the Valve Assy-EGR and it was found to be defective. The same was replaced on 23rd September, 2005 as per invoice No.B200502458, under warranty. (Annexure I). Thereafter, the Complainant wrote letter to that effect on 7th October, 2005 which was acknowledged by HMIL, New Delhi, on 17th October, 2005 and the latter offered to carry out through inspection.
The Complainant further stated that a complaint for the 4th time was lodged on 22nd November, 2005, on the same problem, i.e. heavy fuel smell and black smoke from the exhaust of the vehicle. Thereafter, the Petitioner kept the vehicle in its custody from November 22, 2005 till December 4, 2005. During this period, there was no communication from the Petitioner and the Complainant constantly telephoned both Rama Motors and Mr.Ninin Chugh who simply said that they were still checking the vehicle to ensure that a trouble free vehicle was returned to the Complainant.
It is the say of the Complainant that the Petitioner, thereafter, dismantled the engine Head Assy vide repair order B200505469 without informing the Complainant; without having a definite knowledge nor agenda on what was to be done and without a prior diagnosis of the problem; and that the exact nature of repair carried out on a new vehicle was never disclosed to the Complainants.
Thereafter, on 4th December, 2005, the Complainant was informed by Mr.Nitin Chugh, MTIL & Rama Motors, that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the vehicle. The persisting problem was, however, again brought to the notice of the Petitioner vide Complainants letter dated 28th November 2005 which was acknowledged by the Petitioner vide its letter dated November 30, 2005.
Again, the 5th complaint of fuel smell and black smoke was made against repair order B200600640 on 10.1.2006.
According to the Repair Order, there was some adjustment done with Air Fresh Cable which was causing fuel leakage and thick black smoke and there was nothing else wrong.
The Complainant has further mentioned that on 14.1.2006 when the vehicle was being driven, it started emanating smell and there was diesel leakage while driving the vehicle at approx. at 10.00 am. The entire fuel tank was almost empty. There was a lot of smoke being emitted from under the bonnet of the car and it was just on the verge of catching fire. On the same day, against Repair Order No. R20060050 the vehicle was again booked and was inspected. According to the technician who was sent by Rama Motors, the Fuel Return Assy was damaged.
The Complainant further stated that after the repairs to the return fuel assy, the vehicle developed wobbling/friction in the steering wheel, coupled with engine knocking. When the matter was reported to Rama Motors, they advised the Complainant to deposit the vehicle again for checking and inspection and that they would need to dismantle the power steering pump, and, further advised not to use the vehicle in that state as the whole vehicle could get jammed while driving.
Since then the vehicle was parked at home and was not used. Hence, the vehicle was not got repaired.
After issuing a legal notice on 15.2.2006 the Complainant approached the District Forum, New Delhi by filing Complaint Case No. 210 of 2006. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.11.2006 directed the Petitioner (Opposite Party) to replace the defective Accent Car CRD Diesel Model, manufactured by the Petitioner with a new defect free vehicle of the same model and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical harassment, and to pay Rs.2,500/- as litigation costs.
In Appeal, filed by the Petitioner, the State Commission, by the impugned order dated 14.2.2007, modified the order of the District Forum and directed that the Petitioner shall refund the entire cost of the vehicle received by it, i.e., Rs.6,59,783/- and take back the vehicle and pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant.
That order is challenged by filing this Revision Petition.
Contentions of the Opposite Party:
At the time of hearing of this Revision Petition learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that there was no manufacturing defect, and, therefore, the order passed by the State Commission could not be justified. He also submitted that the vehicle had met with a major accident and was brought for repairs to accidental damages on 2.12.2005 at the workshop of Respondent No.2 at a mileage of 21,720 kms. and that the repairs pertained to change of minor parts like panel assembly, bumpers, screw tapping, moulding assembly, etc. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that there were manufacturing defects, which were noted in the service card, as stated above.
Findings:
Undisputedly, as stated above, a brand new car was required to be repaired repeatedly and the Opposite Parties are not in a position to find solution to control emission of white/black smoke. The Petitioner also admitted that Valve Assembly EGR System were replaced under warranty. In this connection, we find force in the contention of the Complainant that normally fuel injectors and head are not dismantled/cleaned for at least a running distance of 50,000 kms, whereas in this CRDi, after 2,265 kms. on February 1, 2005 injectors were required to be cleaned. But, the Opposite Parties still insisted that there was nothing wrong with the world class CRDi car! .
In our view, as stated above, the car was required to be repaired on several occasions. The car was, all through out, emitting smoke which defect could not be rectified by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner, in its reply to the complaint filed before the District Forum, admitted that that the car was delivered to the Complainant in good running condition after carrying out repairs and the Complainant had expressed his satisfaction with the repairs on several occasions.
In our opinion, from the admission made by the Petitioner it is clear that the vehicle had gone to them on several occasions for repairs. In our view, there is no necessity for a new car to go to work shop on several occasions for repairs within a short span of one year of its purchase.
As stated above, with such a vehicle the consumer would not be satisfied. Maybe that such defects may occur in one out of thousand vehicles but, at the same time, it is the duty of the reputed/established manufacturer to replace such a vehicle. We cannot lose sight of the fact that vehicles which emit smoke beyond the specified levels, are not allowed to ply on the roads.
It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the car was used by the Complainant for more than one year and, therefore, appropriate deduction in the amount payable to the Complainant be made. In our view, this submission cannot be accepted because the Complainant has also invested money for purchase of the said car and on the same amount he has lost interest. The car was required to be used after its repeated repairs. In such a case, it was the duty of the Petitioner to replace the car as they were not in a position to rectify the defect. Hence, there is no question of deducting any amount in the present case.
In this view of the matter, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference in revision. As stated above, the Petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.4 lakh which has been withdrawn by the Complainant. Hence, the Petitioner shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,59,783/- along with the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the State Commission by way of compensation to the Complainant, within a period of four weeks from today. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
..J. (M.B. SHAH) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER Sd/-
..
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) MEMBER