State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hyundai Motor India Limited, vs Mrs. Cijoni Matilda Dias, on 10 March, 2014
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI -GOA FA No. 03/14 Hyundai Motor India Limited, Through its Authorized Signatory, Registered Office: A/102, 1st Floor, Business Square, Solitaire Corp. Park, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 069. . Appellant v/s 1. Mrs. Cijoni Matilda Dias, Wife of Mr. Brian Fernandes, Flat No.S/2, Bemvinda Apartments, I.B. Road, Pajifond, Margao, Goa 403 601. 2. M/s. Goa Motors Pvt. Ltd., Having its workshop at Prema Vasant Estate, S. No.41/1, NH-17, Nagoa, Verna, Salcete, Goa 403 722. . Respondents FA No. 05/14 M/s. Goa Motors Pvt. Ltd., Having its registered office at Joshi Building, 2nd Floor, F. L. Gomes Road, Vasco da Gama, Goa & Having its workshop at Prema Vassant Estate, S. No.41/1, NH-17, Nagoa, Verna - Goa Hereinafter represented by its Managing Director Mr. Prashant Joshi Major of age, resident of Vasco da Gama, Goa . Appellant v/s 1. Mrs. Cijoni Matilda Dias, Wife of Mr. Brian Fernandes, Major of age, Indian Nationals Residing at Flat No.S/2, Bemvinda Apartments, I.B. Road, Pajifond, Margao, Goa 403 601. 2. Hyundai Motor India Limited, Appellant company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and Having its registered office at A/102, 1st Floor, Business Square, Solitaire Corp. Park, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 069. . Respondents Appellant/O.P. No. 2 is represented by Adv. Shri S. Chodankar Respondent No.1/Complainant is represented by Adv. Shri. G. B. Kamat Appellant/OP No.1 is represented by adv. Shri A. A. Shetye Coram: Shri. Justice N. A. Britto, President Shri. Jagdish Prabhudessai, Member Dated: 10/03/2014 ORDER
[Per Justice Shri. N. A. Britto, President] These appeals can be conveniently disposed off by this common order. F.A. No.03/2014 has been filed by OP No.1, and F.A. No.05/2014 has been filed by OP No.2, in CC. No. 31/12. OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the dealer.
2. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose off the appeals.
3. The Complainant purchased from OP No.2, the dealer, an i10 Car (automatic gears) on 22/02/2012 for a sum of Rs.5,03,062/- and registered the same under reg. no.GA-08K-0126. The car had power steering.
4. The Complainant found, after about 10 days, that the steering had a problem in that the steering wheel was not rotating smoothly and whenever the steering wheel was turned right or left, it would not come back to its normal original position. The Complainant, therefore, wrote a letter on 01/03/2012 complaining about the said defect. The Complainant then took the car to OP No.2, dealer, with the said complaint of hard steering on 02/03/2012 and again for the 1st free servicing on 17/04/2012, with odometer reading 1274 kms. and for the 2nd free servicing on 04/08/2012 with odometer reading 2925 Kms, but, the grievance of the Complainant could not be sorted out. The other grievance of the Complainant is that the car gives a very poor mileage of 8.5 kms./ltr., as against promised mileage of 20.36 kms./ltr.
5. The Lr. District Forum, by impugned order dated 28/11/2013, has directed the OPs to refund to the Complainant the price paid by the Complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 17/02/2012 until payment is made, and on refund, return of the car.
6. As regards the first grievance of the Complainant, about the defective steering wheel, the OPs contend that previous i10 cars manufactured prior to October 2011 had a 65A steering column motor which was very smooth and at the slightest touch would turn the steering as compared to 35A steering column motor.
When asked, whether steering column motor could now be changed, the OPs have submitted that the Complainants car cannot now be fitted with 65A steering column motor as that has been discontinued.
7. To support her case on the first defect, the Complainant produced the following evidence:
a) Letter dated 01/11/2012 written by the M.D. of OP No.2 to one Manu Srivastava of OP No. 1 stating that:
I dont agree with the views of Sharad that the car steering system works the same way as new i10 cars after modification.
I have personally driven the car along with customer and Vijay Kamat and found the steering worse than on new modified system.
The steering just doesnt come back.
I tried convincing the customer to give us the car to sort out the issue but he refused since he has filed a case.
b) The Complainant has also filed the affidavits of Conroy de Mello. Conroy de Mello is a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering, and, he has stated that when the steering wheel is turned left or right, it remains in the same position and does not come back freely to the normal position straight position. He has stated that he drove the car at the speed of about 30 kms. per hour on a straight road and 10 kms. per hour on turns, and, he has opined that the car of the Complainant cannot be driven like other vehicles like Hyundai Verna, Maruti A Star and Honda Brio.
c) Complainant has also filed the affidavit of Shalom Sardinha. He is also a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering. He has stated that the Complainants car steering wheel does not rotate smoothly and further when the steering wheel is turned right or left, it remains in the same position and does not come back freely to the normal - straight position. He has also stated that he has test driven the car, (in the same manner as the said Conroy de Mello) and according to him, the Complainants car is not smooth like Hyundai Verna, Maruti A Star and Honda Brio.
d) Complainant has filed the affidavit of Manuel Pereira. He is an ITI in Automobile Engineering, and, does repair, servicing of cars manufactured by different companies.
He has also stated that when the steering wheel of the Complainant s car is turned right or left, it remains in the same position and does not come back freely to the normal straight position. He too took a test drive of the Complainants car and found that the steering wheel does not move freely as compared to other vehicles having power steering which according to him is a manufacturing defect.
8. The overwhelming evidence produced by the Complainant is a clear proof that although the Complainants car has a power steering it does not work as a power steering should work and which defect the OPs have failed to and are unable to rectify to the satisfaction of the Complainant.
Infact, the Lr. District Forum, in the impugned order, has observed in para 20, that the admission in letter dated 01/11/2012 is not reflected in the written version of OP No.2 or in his evidence or in their affidavit in evidence or in their written arguments, but quite on the contrary he the M.D. has stated that the steering wheel is slightly hard as compared to the previous i10 vehicle. In other words, the admission is not sufficiently explained. The Lr.
District Forum has relied on the evidence of the said witnesses and the qualifications given by each of them and we see no reason as to why it should not have been relied upon. It was always open to the OPs to have disproved their qualifications or their expert opinions by producing the opinion of their own experts. A submission was made that the complainant had test driven i10 before purchasing the same. Complainants answer is that the i10 car test driver by her was fitted with 65A steering column motor and the test drive car had remained the same. That sounds to be more probable and plausible.
9. Regarding the second grievance of the Complainant about the low mileage that it gives 8.5 kms./ltr against promise mileage of 20.36, the defence of the OPs is that the vehicle gives a mileage of 18 kms./ltr and the mileage depends upon a number of factors like road conditions, driving habits, improper tyre pressure, wheel alignment, quick acceleration, excessive idling, running electrical accessories like air conditioner and lack of proper maintenance, etc.
a) The Complainant has produced a copy of website of OP No.1. OP No.1 has projected the car as the next generation i10. Simply irresistible. It also mentions that :
The best seller is also the no.1 in mileage. After comparing it with six other brands of cars it is claimed that it gives:
20.36 Km./lit.
This mileage is highlighted and further it is mentioned that:
1. The BSN complaint 1.2 kappa2 with engine with VTVT achieved a spectacular fuel mileage of 20.36 km/ltr.
2.
Best in class ARAI-certified fuel efficiency among petrol cars in India.
b) By letter dated 01/11/2012 the said Manu wrote to the dealer, OP No.2, requesting their service team to fully inspect the vehicle and have a full tank road test of the vehicle for resolution of the mileage problem.
10. Instead of going by the advice of the manufacturer, the dealer, OP No.2, test drove the car from their Verna Showroom to MES College road covering a distance of about 12.8 kms. at average speed of about 50 kms/hour and got average fuel consumption of 12.81 kms/ltr., which is not even anywhere close to 20.36 as projected on the website. It is common knowledge that mileage does depend on driving habits, road conditions, tyre pressure, etc. We assume the OPs took the test drive in most ideal conditions as chosen by them and yet obtained mileage of only 12.8 kms/lt. Appellants car, with automatic gears would have generally given a lower mileage than the cars with gears.
However, the fact remains that OP No.1 represented to the public in general and the Complainant in particular that their i10 cars would give a record mileage of 20.36 kms./ltr. after comparing the same with six other brands of cars. A submission is made that the mileage on the advertisement relates to i10 cars with gears and not to cars with automatic gears. If that be so, it ought to have been specifically so stated. By not doing so, it clears that OP No. 1 is trying to mislead gullible consumer. It is not even stated on the said advertisement on the website that the said mileage would be obtained under standard test conditions which sometimes is used as a veil to hide the face. The OPs have not proved their claim that the Complainants car ever delivered 18 kms./ltr., and, all that they could prove is that it could go outside city limits at maximum of 12.81 kms./ltr. This is a clear case of making a false or misleading representation on both counts and as such an unfair trade practice and that too after comparing their car with other brands.
11. If on a straight road, the OP No.2, dealer, could get 12.81 kms./ltr, the Complainant would be right in stating that the Complainants car gets 8.5 kms./ltr.
12. On the facts of the case no interference is called for in the impugned order.
13. This is not a case where we should apply the principle of repair the defect. (see Maruti Udyog Ltd., II (2006)CPJ 3). Applying the ratio of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (1) CPR 409 (NC) is in order.
14. We find there is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed with costs.
15. Although the Complainant did not seek any further relief except for refund of the sale price, we think this is a fit case to direct the OPs and particularly OP No. 1, to discontinue the unfair trade practice by changing the website within a period of 30 days and report compliance.
16. The Complainant is entitled for costs of Rs. 5,000/- on both the appeals to be paid by the OPs jointly and severally.
[Shri. Jagdish G. Prabhudesai] [Justice Shri. N. A. Britto] Member President /lm