State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Sameer S Kartha vs Hyundai Motors India Ltd on 10 March, 2026
1 CC/14/430
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSEL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA AT MUMBAI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: SC/27/CC/14/430
Shri Sameer S Kartha
Residing at A-404, Vasai Manor, Babhola
Chulna Road, Vasai West, Thane 401202 ....Complainant
Versus
1. Hyundai Motor India Limited
Registered Office at Irrugattukottal,
NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu 602117.
And having its place of business at
Business Square, A/102, First Floor, Chakula,
Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai 400 093.
2. Modi Motors Agencies Private limited
Authorized Agent of Hyundai Motor
India Limited.
Plot No.223, Ground Floor,
Modi House, Opp L.I.C Building,
Naupada, Eastern Express High way,
Thane- 400602. ....Opposite Parties.
BEFORE:
Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member
APPEARANCE :
For Complainant : Adv. Akshada Deshpande
For Opposite Party No.1: Adv. Shamin F.
For Opposite Party No.2: None
O R D E R
(Delivered on 10/03/2026) Per Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member
1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/430/2014 in is filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. (The 'C.P. Act' for short) by the Complainant against Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. The brief facts of the case of 2 CC/14/430 Complainant stated that, the Complainant is a General Manager of Sales and Marketing, for the purpose of sales, the Complainant has to travel a lot so, he decided to buy a good, sturdy, fuel efficient and safe car.
2. Case of the Complainant that, on 21/01/2012, he purchased a HYUNDAI FLUIDIC VERNA (Diesel) Car from the Opponent No.2, an agent of the Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 at a price of Rs.10,19,603/- including charges for registration and insurance. That is total amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-. The Warranty of the Car was for 2 years. The Car was delivered to the Complainant on 06/02/2012 and was registered with the RTO Thane bearing No.MH-48-A-3997 on 08/02/2012.
3. Complainant stated that, the 1st and 2nd free services of the Car were carried out on 28th February, 2012 at 1023 Kms. and on 30th August, 2012 at 10179 Kms. respectively at the Opposite Party No.1's Authorized Service Station. After servicing, within few months after using the Car, the Complainant faced problems pertaining to the poor mileage. The Opposite Party No.2 neglected his complaints of poor mileage and returned the Car after regular service.
4. Complainant stated that, on 10th June, 2013, the Complainant found that the gear lever was locked in reverse position and he was not able to shift to other positions any more. On observation, the Complainant found that the clutch pedal was remaining depressed and not moving up after releasing the same. He lifted the clutch pedal by hand and immediately drove the Car to the Opposite Party No.2's Service Centre. The Car was attended by one Mr. Sapnil, Adviser and he recommended replacement of the master cylinder on clutch mechanism because it had a manufacturing defect. The master cylinder was replaced free of charge, as this was a manufacturing defect and the car was under warranty. The Complainant was surprised that a new car manufactured by a company which is having lot of quality checks and certificates, was having this kind of a manufacturing defect.
3 CC/14/430
5. Complainant further stated that, the same problem again started after the Car ran for a few Kms. and the gear shifting again became very hard. On 27th August, 2013 the Complainant therefore took the Car to the Opposite Party No.2 who kept the Car for a day and returned it after some repairs. Thereafter, again on 10th September, 2013, the Complainant noticed the defects in the Car i.e. handbrake was not working properly, Belt was making noise; and Poor Mileage was continuing. The Car was returned back after doing some lubrication and without attending to the above defects and as such, the same problems arose after a few Kms.
6. Meanwhile, the 2 year warranty of the Car expired on 8th.February, 2014. After 2 months expiry of the warranty, the Complainant felt some abnormal sound from the Car and he stopped the car. After the engine was put off, he could not start the Car again. The Car was towed to the Modi Hyundai Vasal East Workshop and given for repairs. The Complainant was given an estimated cost of INR 47,288-00 for replacing the clutch, release bearing, pressure plate and fly wheel. The Complainant requested a free replacement for the same as this defect or problem was pre-existing and he had already made several complaints in this regard. Surprisingly and very strangely, after the warranty period had expired, the said Service Centre pointed out to the Complainant, the very same. Defects about which he had been all along complaining. The Service Centre pointed out that the release bearing on the assembly is sheared off and the metal particles had damaged the fingers on the pressure plate on the clutch and even damaged the fly wheel of the vehicle. To replace all these parts, the Modi Hyundai Vasal charged a sum of Rs. 47,288/- under Bill dated 26th May, 2014 which the Complainant had no option but to pay. The Complainant said that the Opposite Party No.2 merely replaced the defective master cylinder and never checked the other related parts in the clutch assembly while replacing the same. This showed lack of competency and technical knowledge of the service team.
4 CC/14/430
7. The Complainant stated that, he sent an email to the Customer Care of the Opposite Party No. 1 recording the various details but surprisingly till today, there is no response from the Opposite Party No. 1. The Car was delivered back to the Complainant after the repairs. Again after few days the Complainant observed vibration in the car and gave the Car to the Service Centre. The Service Centre has listed 21 items to be attended to and defects to be rectified in the Car and has given an Estimated Bill of Rs 1,49,500/-.
8. The Complainant state that, the Car sold to him by the Opposite Parties is defective, not at all roads worthy and has built in inherent manufacturing defects, faults, imperfections and short comings. The Complainant has reasons to believe that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 have all along been aware of the defects in the Car whenever it was sent for repairs but they deliberately did not attend to the defects during the Warranty period and immediately on the expiry of the same, have now ventured to point out the defects and raise a huge bill of Rs.1, 49,500/- to make illegal gains. The very fact that the estimated Bill has 21 items of repairs is sufficient proof and evidence that the Car supplied is defective.
9. As stated herein before, the Complainant undertakes long distance trips to several cities in Maharashtra for his work and he has had to undergo tremendous hardship and inconvenience due to the defective Car. The Car was at the Service Centre for almost 60 days for the repair and non-availability of the spares. Instead of concentrating on his job, the Complainant is all the time worried about the Car giving problems in the middle of long distance journeys. The Complainant's purpose of buying a Car for his work is totally defeated and he is compelled to travel by taxis and public transport despite having a Car. As such, he is entitled to claim and the Opposite Party No.1 as the manufacturer of a defective Car is solely liable to pay to him, not only the expenses incurred by him for travel by taxi etc. but also compensation and/or damages for the hardship, mental agony and trauma undergone by him.
5 CC/14/430
10. The Complainant further submitted that as a result of the negligence on account of dereliction of duty on part of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, the Complainant suffered loss and injury due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss of professional practice and for which he is entitled to compensation and refund of Rs.10,19,683/- and the interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of the Invoice i.e. from 21st January, 2012 till 31st August, 2014 being Rs 5,86,232/- and further interest from 1 September, 2014 till payment. The Complainant is also entitled to demand from the Opposite Party No.1, the amounts paid by him towards the Insurance, Registration, Anti-rust treatment etc. at the time of purchase, being Rs. 2,30,317/- and the interest thereon @ 18% p.a. Further, the Complainant is also entitled to a refund of an amount of Rs. 47,288/- paid by him towards the Repairs under the Bill dated 26th May, 2014 and the interest thereon @ 18% p.a.
11. Upon admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the Opponents. They appeared through counsel and opponent no.1 filed his Written Version with documents; the pleadings of both sides have been taken on record.
CONTENTION OF THE OPPONENT NO-1
12. In defence, Opponent No.1 raised objections that complaint is frivolous, misconceived and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts, is devoid of any merits whatsoever and deserves to be dismissed in limine. Opponent No.1 denies all and in singular the averments, contentions, submissions and allegations made in the complaint, as if the same has been specifically traversed and denied save and except to the extent expressly admitted. There is no cause of action whatsoever for the present complaint to be filed against the Opponent No.1.
13. Opponent No.1 submitted that a brand new Hyundai Fluidic Verna (Diesel) car bearing VIN: MALCU41ULBM044142 was delivered to the Complainant by the Opponent No. 2 on 06.02.2012. The said car was delivered 6 CC/14/430 to the complainant in perfect running condition as any other new car, without any technical or mechanical defect whatsoever.
14. The Complainant alleged that the car had poor mileage despite on-time services provided by Opposite Party No.2. Furthermore, the Complainant on 10.06.2013, after 16 months of the purchase covering a mileage of 21030 Kms, complained about the sudden locking of the gear lever in reverse position and clutch pedal being non-functional resulting in the replacement of the master cylinder on clutch mechanism. Thereafter, the Complainant upon completion of around 19 months from the date of purchase on 10.09.2013 reported problems in handbrake and the noise occurring from the belt. After the expiry of the 2 year warranty period, on and around April, 2014, the Complainant observed about the abnormal sound from the car and the clutch, release bearing as well at the pressure plate and fly wheel of the car were replaced by Opposite Party No.2. Moreover, the Complainant alleged that the car sold to be him was defective and has had manufacturing defects, faults, imperfections and short comings.
15. Opponent No.1 stated that the present Complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the same is barred by limitation. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as the Complaint has been filed only in November, 2014 i.e. beyond two years from the date of purchase of the car on 06.02.2012. Thus the complaint is barred by limitation. The intent behind such an act appears to be to harass the Opposite Party No.1 and slow down the procedure of the Commission to give finality in the matter. It is a well settled principle of law that limitation has to be reckoned from the date of purchase of the vehicle and hence in this case the complainant is clearly barred by limitation.
16. Opponent No.1 relied on the case of Ishwarlal Amarnani vs. Hero Puch & Anr reported in III (2011) CPJ 132 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has categorically held that "It is not in dispute that the vehicle was bought in 2000 and the complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2003. All the job 7 CC/14/430 cards produced pertain to the period after the warranty period was over The contention of the Petitioner that the period of limitation will start when the Respondent failed to rectify the defects is not tenable Section 24-A of the Act is a legislative mandate to the consumer fora not to admit a complaint unless it has been filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen except when the complainant satisfies the forum that there was sufficient cause for not filing complaint within time. In the instant case no such application for condonation of delay has been filed. Section 24-A further states that the consumer fora will be committing an illegality if they entertain a complaint beyond the period two years. Keeping in view these facts, we agree with the fora below that the case was barred by limitation and uphold the order of the State Commission."
17. Opponent No.1 submitted that dealt with all its dealers on principle-to- principle basis and the concerned dealer is responsible for error/omission/misrepresentation, if any at time of retail sales/services/repairs of the car. The liability of the OP-1 being the manufacturer of the car is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone.
18. Opponent No.1 also submitted that another very important aspect that deserves mention is the fact that the Complainant has failed to disclose true facts before this State Commission. The Complainant is deliberately concealing the fact that the vehicle in question has been reported twice for accidental repairs on 26.08.2013 and 24:03:2014 respectively. Accident not just affects vehicle performance but also shows the bad driving habits of the owner of the car. Further, the complainant reported twice on 13.03.2014 and 29.06.2014 for running repair as wiring of the vehicle was cut by rats and thus, cannot be termed as defects. The complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands and has mooted this complaint with concocted facts, based on vague terms alleging manufacturing defects without any proof through corroborative evidences and hence, such averments have no importance in the eyes of law.
8 CC/14/430
19. Opponent No.1 submitted that the vehicle in question has been attended timely and efficiently in a manner prescribed by the warranty policy of the Opposite Party No.1. It is humbly submitted that whenever the complainant reported his vehicle at the workshop of the Opposite Party No.2, prompt and efficient service was always provided to him and all the concerns whatsoever, reported were duly rectified to his entire satisfaction. It is submitted that the car has been thoroughly examined and no abnormality has been observed in the car as per the norms of the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). The complainant is levelling wild allegations with some ulterior motive, the vehicle is still lying at the workshop of the Opposite Party No.2 in perfect road worthy condition but the complainant is not taking delivery of the vehicle for reasons best known to him despite repeated reminders from the Opposite Party No.1. Further it is pertinent to note that the clutch is not covered under the warranty since they are consumable items and wear out during the use of the vehicle due to the driving condition. This fact has also been duly mentioned in the owner's manual and service booklet. Factors such as overriding, keeping the clutch engaged while accelerating etc. as mentioned in the aforementioned booklets contributes to the damage of the vehicle.
20. Opponent No.1 submitted that the Complainant's allegation of poor mileage of vehicle is vague and baseless The mileage claim with respect to Hyundai vehicles are tested and certified by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) which is operative industrial research association established by the automotive industry with the Ministry of Industries, Government of India. The mileage performance of the car depends on several factors including terrain, driving habit, driving conditions, road and traffic conditions, improper use of clutch, tyre pressure, fuel quality, running of electrical accessories etc.
21. It is further submitted that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the outset in view of the fact that the complainant had covered an extensive mileage of more than 37,552 kms from the date of its purchase on 06.02.2012 till 17.07.2014, in a span of 25 years of its purchase It is respectfully submitted 9 CC/14/430 that had there been any defect in the car, the same could not have been covered such an extensive mileage. In this regard the Hon'ble National Commission had lain down in the matter of SKODA Auto India P Ltd & Ors. v. M. Surendran reported at MANU/CF/0249/2018 wherein the Hon'ble Commission in para 17 observed that "It is also true that the vehicle has now run 1,38,435 kms and thus, there cannot be a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In observing this I am relying on decisions of this Commission which have been relied upon by the petitioners. It is true that the position of the vehicle when the complaint was filed is to be seen and at that time the transmission assembly was replaced under warranty The warranty of the vehicle only allows replacement of the component and accordingly transmission system was replaced. So, at that time it was definitely not a case of total replacement of the car. Clearly the District Forum, therefore, did not allow the replacement of the car or refund of the total price of the car at that time in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Ran Singh reported at III (2016) CPJ 227 (NC). The same reiterated in Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Surbhi Gupta & Ors, reported in 2014 SCCO nline NCDRC 487 where the Hon'ble National Commission held that "I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Manufacturer. Hyundai Motors India Lid that had there been some inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it would not have been possible for the vehicle to run about 48.689 Kms for over a period of more than 35 years.
22. It is submitted that the car as delivered to the Complainant on 06.02.2012 was in a perfect running condition as any other new car and the same had no defect of any nature whatsoever. Assuming, without admitting that there existed any defect, it is respectfully submitted that in view of the below mentioned judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission, the Complainant cannot seek replacement of the Car. To prove the same, emphasis is upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd v. Susheel Kumar Gobgotra & Anr. reported in II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) in which it was held that the Complainant cannot seek replacement of the Car as prayed for and therefore the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10 CC/14/430
23. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the conducting of expert evidence must be ordered by the Hon'ble State Commission and in the absence of such a test to determine whether there is a defect as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there can be no order to compensate or replace the part. If a car is not driven properly then such a problem can occur at an early stage as well. If any vehicle is checked for a particular problem, it does not mean there was a manufacturing defect. To prove manufacturing defect, the opinion of a competent person or authority has to be obtained. The same was opined by the Hon'ble National Commission in Md. Hassan Khalid Haidar v. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. cited at IV (2018) CPJ 115 (NC).
24. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the grounds of the Complaint, it is respectfully submitted that this Commission be pleased to dismiss the Complaint in limine with exemplary costs, and pass any other order as this Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
25. Heard the learned advocates for the parties at length; perused the complaint with annexures, the Written Version of Opposite Party No.1, the affidavits of evidence of the both parties and the documents placed on record as well as citation of record filed by the both parties, upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, materials and submissions available, the following points arise for our determination and are answered as set out hereinafter.
Sr.No. Points Findings
1 Whether the vehicle suffers from a manufacturing Affirmative
defect as per the Consumer Protection Act?
2 Whether the repeated failures of major Affirmative
components within the warranty period entitle the
consumer to a refund or replacement?
3 What order? As per final
Order
11 CC/14/430
REASONS
As to point no.1
26. After perusing record the Commission observes that on 10th June, 2013, the Complainant found suddenly that the gear lever was locked in reverse position and he was not able to shift to other positions any more. The clutch pedal was remaining depressed and not moving up after releasing the same. He lifted the clutch pedal by hand and immediately drove the Car to the Opposite Party No.2's Service Centre. As, on 21st January, 2012, the Complainant purchased Car from opponent No 2 with 2 years warranty. It means car was within warranty on date of 10th June, 2013.
27. A consumer who buys a new vehicle does so with the expectation of hassle-free usage. Frequent visits to the workshop for major repairs (engine and transmission) in a brand-new car indicate a "manufacturing defect" even if a specific technical report is absent, as the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) applies to the sub-standard performance of a new machine. In view of our finding given as to have point No.1 in affirmative, it has become clear that, the vehicle suffers from a manufacturing defect as per the Consumer Protection Act.
As to point no.2
28. In this present case, after the perusal of record, it observed that, the 2 year Warranty of the Car expired on 8th February 2014. After 2 months expiry of the Warranty, the Complainant felt some abnormal sound from the Car and the engine was put off, he could not start the Car again. The Car was towed to the Modi Hyundai Vasal East Workshop and given for repairs. The Complainant was given an estimated cost of INR 47,288-00 for replacing the clutch, release bearing, pressure plate and fly wheel. The Complainant requested a free replacement for the same as this defect or problem was pre-existing and he had already made several complaints in this regard. Surprisingly and very strangely, after the Warranty period had expired, the said Service Centre pointed out to the 12 CC/14/430 Complainant, the very same defects about which he had been all along complaining. The Service Centre pointed out that the release bearing on the assembly is sheared off and the metal particles had damaged the fingers on the pressure plate on the clutch and even damaged the fly wheel of the vehicle. To replace all these parts, the Modi Hyundai Vasal charged a sum of Rs. 47,288-00 under Bill dated 26th May, 2014 which the Complainant had no option but to pay. The Complainant said that the Opposite Party No.2 merely replaced the defective master cylinder and never checked the other related parts in the clutch assembly while replacing the same. This showed lack of competency and technical knowledge of the service team.
29. The law recognizes an implied warranty that goods sold must be of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were bought. A vehicle that spends excessive time in the workshop due to recurring major failures fails this test. If a critical component (like an engine, transmission, or electronic control unit) fails repeatedly despite multiple attempts by authorized service centres to fix it, courts often treat this as a "manufacturing defect. If the manufacturer or dealer fails to resolve the issue effectively after multiple repair attempts, it constitutes a "deficiency in service" because they have failed to provide a functioning product for which they took full payment. In view of our finding given as to have point No.1 in affirmative, it has become clear that, the repeated failures of major components within the warranty period entitle the consumer to a refund or replacement.
30. In view of our findings as to point no.1 & 2 in Affirmative, it is clear that the opponent No.1 & 2 has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Therefore, this commission came to the conclusion that complaint is hereby needs to be partly allowed. It is directed to the opponent No.1 and No.2 jointly and severally refund the full purchase price of Rs12,50,000/- to the Complainant. Upon receipt of payment, the Complainant shall return the vehicle to the opponent No.1 and No.2. The refund amount shall carry an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the 13 CC/14/430 complaint until realization. It is directed to the opponent No.1 and No.2 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs. 47,288/- which was paid towards the repairs under the Bill dated 26th May, 2014 of Modi Hyundai Service Centre.
31. In addition it is directed to the opponent No.1 and No.2 jointly and severally to pay to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards the compensation for the stress, inconvenience, harassment, mental torture & agony suffered by the Complainant; As well as pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the Legal and incidental expenses incurred by the Complainant. The order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Hence, in an answer to point no. 3 we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Complaint is hereby partly allowed.
2. It is directed to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and No.2 jointly and severally refunds the full purchase price of Rs.12,50,000/- to the Complainant. Upon receipt of payment, the Complainant shall return the vehicle to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and No.2. The refund amount shall carry an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realization.
3. It is directed to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and No.2 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.47,288/- which was paid towards the repairs under the Bill dated 26th May, 2014 of Modi Hyundai Service Centre.
4. In addition, it is directed to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and No.2 jointly and severally to pay to the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation for the stress, inconvenience, harassment, mental torture & agony suffered by the Complainant; as well as pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the Legal and incidental expenses incurred by the Complainant.
14 CC/14/430
5. The order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. The copy of the judgment be furnished to the both side free of cost.
Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi Presiding Member Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan Member NAC/aj