National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Santosh Devi vs Hyundai South Regional Office, on 21 May, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.1619 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 24.1.2011 Appeal No. 2175/2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka ) Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Jaiprakash Near Kurekuppa Torangallu, Sandur Taluk Bellary District ........ Petitioner Vs. 1. Hyundai South Regional Office, N.P. 54, Development Plot Ekkadudthangal Thiruvika, Industrial Estate, Chennai-32 2. Bellad Hyundai, A United of Bellad Motors Pvt. Ltd. Bellad Clhambers II, Near Unkal Cross, Vidya Nagar, Hubli -31 3. Hothur Hyundai, Authorised Dealer for Hyundai Cars, Hothur Motors Pvt. Ltd. 811/2, NH-63, Hospetroad Alliput, Bellary Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, Advocate Pronounced on : 21st May , 2012 ORDER
PER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Present petition filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act) is against impugned order dated 24.1.2011, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short as State Commission).
2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant purchased car bearing No.KA-35-M-2368 from respondent no.3/OP-3 on 23.3.2005. The said car carried warranty for 4 years. In May, 2008, timing belt of the car was cut off and engine ceased. By that time it had run 60975 Kms. Petitioner toed the car to respondent no.3s service station and it attended to the defect and delivered it on 14.7.2008. Again in September, 2008 on her way to Delhi, petitioner noticed some mechanical problem with the said vehicle like emitting black smoke and loss in the pick up power. Petitioner brought back the vehicle to respondent no.3 for repairs on 4.9.2008. Though, respondent no.3 attended to the said defects but made a claim of Rs.1,24,927/- on 19.11.2008. The said defect occurred within the warranty period. Hence, respondent no.3 is obliged to repair it free of cost but the same was not done. The claim of respondent no.3 is unjust and improper. For no fault of the petitioner, she was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Her repeated requests and demands made to respondent no.3 to return the car went in vain. Hence, she felt deficiency in service and filed the complaint.
3. On appearance, respondents nos. 1 and 3 filed their version. Respondent no.2 remained absent.
4. It is the plea of contesting respondents, that the complaint is barred by time.
Though petitioner purchased the car in the year 2005 but complaint has been filed after 4 years. As admitted by petitioner herself, up to May, 2008 there was no problem with the said car of any kind and by that time it had already run more than 63000 Kms. When car was brought for repairs it was attended and petitioner took delivery of the same being satisfied with the repairs. Again on 4.9.2008, the said car was brought for repairs. At that time, it was observed that adulterated engine oil was put and that is the reason why engine oil pump was fully thick with dirty oil, hydraulic latches were fully free, fourth main cylinder connecting rod was blocked. These defects are mainly due to the sub-standard oil put in the engine.
After detecting the said defect, respondents asked the petitioner to pay the actual cost of repairs, but she failed to do so. There is no negligence much less deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents. Actually, there is no mechanical defect or manufacturing defect with the said vehicle. The problem if any is due to the bad handling of the said car by the petitioner and for that, respondents cannot be blamed. Complaint is devoid of merit.
5. District Forum, dismissed the complaint, vide its order dated 3.5.2010.
6. Aggrieved by order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide impugned order dismissed the appeal.
7. This is how the matter has reached before this Commission.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
9. As per complaint, petitioners case is that in July, 2008 car was repaired by respondent no.3, but again in September, 2008 the car suffered with problem like emitting black smoke and also lost its pick up and other problems. However, respondent failed to rectify the said defects and demanded payment of Rs.1,24,927/- for effecting the said repairs. Since, the warranty is for a period of four years, the respondent is liable to rectify the said defects free of costs.
10. As per terms of warranty;
This warranty shall not apply to ...
Damage or failure resulting from:
Negligence of proper maintenance as required in this Owners Manual and Service Booklet.
11. It has been held by both the foras below that the car never had any manufacturing defects, because if the car had any manufacturing defects, it would not have run for more than 3 years and could not have covered distance of over 60,000 kms., without any breakdown.
12. State Commission in its impugned order gave following reasoning while dismissing the appeal;
10. When we go through the pleadings of the parties, it appears complainant is very irregular in taking the said vehicle for the service. She was expected to take the said car for service within the stipulated dates, she has not done so. When the car was delivered to the complainant on 14.7.2008 after the test drive of 56 Kms., complainant being satisfied with the same took the delivery. When the said car was again brought back in the month of September, OP told the complainant that the car required to be dismantled because of serious problem with the engine oil. Complainants husband consented for the same. Complainant has not explained under what circumstances the said adulterated engine oil was put. So all these facts and circumstances of the case clearly goes to show that there is bad handling of the said car by the complainant. She failed to take the said car for free service or regular checkups as per the user manual conditions. The DF has thoroughly discussed each and every aspect of the matter and rightly come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
11. The very fact that the said car within a span of three years 2 months run more than 60000 Kms. speaks that there is no inherent manufacturing defect with the said car and the problem with the said car is rather created by the complainant herself. When that is so, she is bound to pay the repair charges.
If she abandoned the said car and failed to take delivery of the same by paying repair charges, she has to thank herself. When complainant is at fault, she cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OPs. Viewed from any angle, complaint appears to be devoid of merit. Appellant has failed to show before this Commission that the impugned order is erroneous, unjust and improper and that it suffers from any legal infirmity, unsustainable in law. There is no proof that the said order suffers from any error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference.
13. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act. It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
14. Honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ;
Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.
The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.
15. Thus, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21 (b) of the Act, since, two fora below have given cogent reasons in their orders, which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.
16. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
....J (V.B. GUPTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) ....
(VINAY KUMAR) (MEMBER) Sg.