National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. vs Cijoni Matilda Dias & Anr. on 30 March, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1933 - 1934 OF 2014
(Against order dated 10.03.2014 in Appeal No. 3 & 5/2014
of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa)
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 ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. MRS. CIJIONI MATILDA DIAS
W/o Mr. Brian Fernandes
Flat No. S/2, Bemvinda Apartments,
I. B. Road, Pajifond, Margo Goa - 403 601
2. M/S GOA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED
Having its workshop at
Prema Vasant Estate,
S. No.41/1, NH-17, Nagao,
Verna, Salcete,
Goa - 403 722 ... RESPONDENTS
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Appeared at the time of Arguments
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Hardik Vashisth, Advocate
Mr. Raina Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent No.-1 : Mr. S. S. Rebello, Advocate
Ms. Moulishree Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondent No.-2 : Ex-parte (vide Order dated 30.01.2024)
PRONOUNCED ON: 30.03.2026
ORDER
A. P. SAHI, J (PRESIDENT)
1. Heard Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rebello, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.-1 and none has 1 appeared for Respondent No.-2 who has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.01.2024.
2. This is a dispute relating to alleged deficiencies and allegations of manufacturing defect in a Hyundai i10 vehicle that was purchased by the Respondent No.-1 from the Respondent No.-2 Dealer and manufactured by the Petitioner. The purchase was made on 21.01.2012 and within a few days a Complaint was made by the Respondent No.-1 to the Dealer / Respondent No.-2 about a serious problem with the steering wheel that was not rotating smoothly and did not revert back to its normal position after turning left or right. The contention of the Complainant was that inspite of this defect being pointed out the same was not rectified and the Complainant had to repeatedly go to the garage of the Respondent No.-2 several times. It was later on also complained that the car gave a very low mileage of 8.5 kms. / litre which was far below the expected and promised mileage of 20 kms. / litre. The Complainant to support the contention had also relied on two reports obtained from Mr. Manuel Pereira and Mr. Conroy D'Melo who according to the Complainant were qualified experts of the field.
3. The claim was contested before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa being Consumer Complaint No. 31 of 2012. The Complaint was allowed on 28.11.2013 and while recording its findings the District Commission also relied on the admission of the Managing Director 2 of the Respondent No.-2 / Dealer, Mr. Prashant Joshi, who had communicated to the Area Manager of the Manufacturer indicating the defect in the steering system. The findings recorded by the District Commission from Paragraph No. - 18 to 28 are extracted herein under:
"18. An email on record dated the 1st November 2013 sent by the OP No. 1 by Mr. Manu Srivastha who is the area service manager of the company sent to the Manager of the Opposite party no 2, explains that all new i-10 vehicles are fitted with 35A steering column motor (except Astha Version) as compared to 65A steering column motor which was fitted in previous i-10 vehicles, also stating that the customer should be educated into this concept that there is no manufacturing defect. In a further mail on the same day he requested the service team to thoroughly inspect the vehicle and to have a full tank road test for the vehicle for resolution of the mileage problem. In a email on the same day he requested thorough checking and inspection of the vehicle and that all defective parts to be replaced under warranty and requested that he thereafter be informed.
19. Also on record is an email from the Managing Director of Opposite Party No. 2 Mr. Prashant Joshi, written on the same day at 11.40 written to the Area Manager stating "I do not agree with the view of Sharad that the Car steering system works the same 3 way as new i10 cars after modification. I have personally driven car along with customer and Vijay Kamat and found the steering worse than on new modified system. The steering just doesn't come back.".....'
20. Surprisingly after the managing director's email sent on 1st November 2012 to the area manager after taking a drive along with the customer and one Vijay Kumar, admitting there was a problem with the steering admitting that the steering was worse than on a new modified system and that the steering just doesn't come back, neither in his written version filed on 7-11-2012, or in his affidavit or written arguments filed subsequently does this admission reflect. Quite to the contrary he states in his written "steering wheel is slightly hard as version at para 4 that the compared to the previous i-10 vehicle, and denies that the problem persists! And further denied in his affidavit at para 4 that there is any problem with the steering wheel which also reflects in his written arguments.
21. The complainant took her car back barely seven days after receiving the same complaining of the steering wheel and subsequently at the time of first servicing the same is seen from the job cards on record. From the e-mail of the Opposite party no. 2 to the area manager of Opposite party no. 1 it is confirmed 4 that her complains were genuine. Having no alternative and in order to allay her fears she took the vehicle to two independent mechanical engineers who on checking out the vehicle confirmed that the said problem did exist and that it was a manufacturing defect. These engineers' have also filed their affidavit in evidence to that effect on behalf of the complainant which are on record. This fact is also confirmed by the email sent on 1st November 2012 from the Managing Director of Opposite party no. 2 to opposite party no. 1. We therefore hold that there is a manufacturing defect with the steering wheel when turned right or left, it remains in the said position and does not freely return back to the normal position.
22. Now coming to whether the Complainant has proved the issue (b). Both in the written version and in the affidavit of the opposite party no. 2, it has been stated that on checking the mileage of the complainant's vehicle it is found to be giving 18 kilometers per liter. However there is no fuel testing report brought on record.
23. As per the report on record dated 17-12-2012, the fuel consumption test was conducted by the opposite party No 2 from Verna showroom to MES College wherein it is shown under operating conditions that the traffic condition, highway driven, 5 gear shifting, brake application, road conditions all showed moderate. The total kilometers covered under these best conditions (Odometer) are 5213 and the mileage per litre indicated is 12.8.
24. Persons purchasing goods make a comparable study of the total consideration they have to pay, the amount they would be required to spend for the purposes of availing the services of such goods and the comforts ensured by such vehicles including the safety in the use of the same and for such purpose bank on the manuals, material furnished by the manufacturers and also on their own inquiries from persons who own such vehicles. It would be absurd to presume the contrary Thus the complainant purchased the said vehicle after studying and considering brochures and through the website information of the opposite party and as read by her on http:// ww.hyundai.com/in/en/ Showroom/Flash/ SRFOVERVIEW/Df in SR EK 080313 it showed that ARAI approved mileage for 1.2 i10 kappa 2 as 20.36 km/lir, which aspect was consciously considered by her at the time of purchase. The photocopy of the snap shot showing ARAI approved mileage for 1.2 i10 kappa 2 as 20.36 has been placed on record.
6
25. It is necessary to point out that the purchasers of vehicles base themselves of the representations made by the Manufacturers in their brochures and their agents with respect to the safety of the vehicle and with respect to the expenditure they would incur on the running of their vehicle Subsequently such purchases are done under the explicit and implicit belief that the representations are genuine and factual and the purchase is not done for being forced with spending time to frequent the service centers maintained by the Opposite Parties and the very fact that the purchaser is compelled to approach the service centers out of turn by itself would amount to vehicles being sold with manufacturing defects which is definitely not acceptable to the purchasers. The choice made in purchasing a vehicle with power steering is also an additional cost for which the purchaser pays. The purchaser also weighs his options of purchase of vehicle based on his financial capacity to run the vehicle and therefore both the complaints as alleged by the complainant stand proved. It is further proved that there is gross negligence on the part of the manufacturers in the discharge of their duty towards the customer. The merchandise that is put for sale cannot be suffering from defects and the spacious plea of certain parts of the vehicle being installed in the vehicle without proper precision 7 and perfection would make the use of the said vehicle a traumatic experience rather than a pleasurable one.
26. As can be ascertained from the complaint and from the correspondence and other evidence led by the parties it is a crystal clear case of imperfection in the manufacturing of the vehicle and the manufacturers are duty bound to make good the deficiencies whether the same are the defects of a part of the vehicle or otherwise and the spacious plea of the manufacturers that the deficiency is of a part of the vehicle that can be substituted cannot absolve them of the duty and care of manufacturing precision vehicles without any manufacturing defects. It is precisely the role of the Research and Development Department of the manufacturers to see that the vehicles are not delivered without clearing all the defects in the vehicle.
The Legislature in its wisdom did not enact the Consumer Protection Act to justify callous and inconsiderate production of consumer items in order to stack the Redressal Forums with complaints of manufacturing defects whether of parts of the vehicle or in its totality and therefore the concept of covering itself under the umbrella of a part. being defective and therefore seeking reprieve from the perfection of its machinery cannot be tolerated.
8
Every manufacturing unit should have as its prime duty to see that the product put by them in the market comes to the market after the same is fully tested with respect to the same and that the same complies with the representations made by it to the customers and that the same is as per standards. The customer based on the representations made by the producer with respect to its quality which includes the service it intends to provide, the cost at which it will be provided and the period for which the same shall be provided venture to on the basis of their financial capacity to purchase the said goods. No customer would purchase a good if he knows that the said representations made are not true. It is not the intention of the customer to purchase an article with the intent to spend time in complaining about the same and spending time in rectifying the defects even if the manufacturer may be made to pay for such defects. The concept of warranty is not for giving an umbrella to the manufacturer to produce defective goods and sell them in the market and after having accepted the consideration for the same excuse themselves contending that the part of the machinery was defective and the same has to be changed. It is the bounden duty of the manufacturer to see that the purchaser is not put to 9 difficulty for its non performance of its Research and Development Department.
27. From the affidavits on record it is crystal clear that Opposite Parties failed in their duty to deliver a vehicle free from any defects which the manufacturer is bound to do and which it has avowed itself and made such representation to the customer and therefore cannot resile by delivering a vehicle which to their knowledge has not passed the test of precision and perfection as represented by them to the customers. The delivery of a vehicle which is imperfect by itself whether the same is consequential to a single component or due to the totality of the components is not acceptable and therefore there cannot be a justification on the part of the manufacturer to put the customer in inclement situations due to its inadequacy and lack of perfection.
Therefore the purchaser of a machinery who purchases the machinery which consists of several parts put together by the manufacturer and the same is found to have a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is duty bound to replace the manufactured article which he represented to be perfect and to substitute the same with a defect free vehicle without any demur or delay so as to avoid inconvenience to the customer and to avoid the customer spending his precious time in complaining 10 about the defect whether the same is of a part of the machine or the machine in its totality.
28. The complainant purchased from the Opposite Party No. 2 thorough it agent the Opposite Party No. 1 and within seven days from the date of the purchase the vehicle developed the stiffness in its steering wheel and immediately on 1.3.2012 complained to the Opposite Party No 1 and took the car for rectifying the same at the garage of the opposite party no. 2 and such a complaint of the complainant was not attended to and rectified compelling the complainant to spend further time in taking an opinion from Ms. Savio Service Station, from Mr. Conroy de Melo who have clearly and unequivocally opined that the same is a manufacturing defect.
The grievance of the complainant is genuine and stands established and in fact it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to replace the said vehicle with a new vehicle after establishing through their Research and Development Department that the vehicle is free from all and any imperfections.
The intransigent attitude of the manufacturer in terming the complaint as baseless, frivolous and being formulated on 11 wrong and misleading facts and termed as being devoid of any merits deserves to be frowned upon"
4. Accordingly the Complaint was allowed after referring to certain judgments of the Apex Court including the judgment in the case of C. N. Anantharam versus Fiat India Limited and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 460 that has once again been cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.-1 before us as well and a refund of the entire amount of Rs.5,03,062/- was directed with interest @ 9%. The Complainant was directed to hand over and deliver the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.-1 / Petitioner and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was also awarded as compensation. The Order of the District Commission dated 28.11.2013 came to be challenged by the Manufacturer, the Petitioner in First Appeal No. 3 of 2014 and an Appeal was also filed by the Dealer being First Appeal No. 5 of 2014. Both the Appeals were dismissed upholding the Order of the District Commission. Paragraph No. 10 - 12 of the findings were recorded by the State Commission are extracted herein under:
"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 anywhere close to 20.36 as projected on the website. It is common knowledge that mileage does depend on driving habits, road 12 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. Appellant's 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 consumers. 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 Complainant's car even 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 false or misleading representation on both counts and as such an unfair trade practice and that too after comparing their car with other brands.
12. On the facts of the case no interference is called for in the impugned order."
13
5. The Manufacturer has come up in this Revision Petition urging that there is no evidence of any manufacturing defect and the so called expert evidence of two persons referred to above that has been relied on by the District Commission are neither experts nor did they examine any part or component of the vehicle to find out or locate any manufacturing defect. Mr. Pattjoshi submits that the vehicle continued to be in the possession of the Respondent No.-1 / Complainant who has utilized it for these long years and as per the instructions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.-1 and stated at the bar, the vehicle has run about 66,000 kms. It is therefore urged by Mr. Pattjoshi that in the absence of any evidence of a manufacturing defect the Complaint could not have been allowed and this being a material irregularity the Revision Petition is maintainable. He has further cited certain decisions along with short notes which are as follows:
1. Hyundai Motors India Limited versus Harjinder Singh and Ors. in Revision Petition No. 1037/2016.
2. Mercedes Benz India Private Limited versus Smt. Revathi Giri and Anr. in First Appeal No. 766 of 2021.
3. Dr. Sadanand Bhojraj versus Chairman Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3276.
4. Ramesh Kumar Bamal versus M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited and Anr. 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1625.
14
6. It is urged that the reliance placed on the expert opinion is bereft of any material to support the same.
7. Mr. Pattjoshi then urged that the direction to refund the entire cost of the vehicle as affirmed by the State Commission is erroneous inasmuch as even assuming for the sake of the argument that there were some defect in operating the steering wheel, the same had already been repaired and the vehicle has been used by the Complainant. There is no manufacturing defect much less any defect and therefore the direction to refund the entire amount being the cost of the vehicle is unjustified.
8. He has further urged that the manufacturer had taken a clear stand that the operation of the steering wheel being a peculiarity of the model was no defect at all. He further submits that the vehicle was being run by the Complainant at very low speed in the vicinity of Goa and therefore to expect the mileage of ideal conditions was an incorrect plea that has been erroneously accepted by the Fora below.
9. He further submits that there is no such disclosure or warranty of the mileage of the vehicle in any of the documents of the Petitioner Company promising a mileage of 20 Kms./litre. The reliance that has been placed on the ARAI advertisements is all about ideal conditions and even otherwise is not the reflection of the Company. He therefore submits that to infer any such defect without any expert evidence is erroneous. 15
10. Mr. Rebello responding to the said submissions urged that the Complainant was forced to drive a defective car without carrying out the repairs or rectifying the defects and as a matter of fact the Respondent No.-2 flatly refused to carry out any replacements if it was necessary. It is urged that the findings that have been recorded by the Fora below are all findings of fact based on material evidence including the opinion of two persons as experts. He further submits that the evidence of those experts in the shape of certificates have not been contested by cross examining those persons who had filed their affidavits in support of the said certificate. He further submits that facts speak for themselves inasmuch as the issue of a defective steering operation and low mileage continued without any effective rectification either by the Petitioner or Respondent No.-2. He therefore submits that the scope of Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being limited there cannot be any inference on such facts.
11. He has also relied on an order passed by the Delhi State Commission in the case of Paawan Chaudhary versus Flat India Automobiles Private Limited and Anr. in Consumer Complaint No. 56 of 2023 decided on 12.02.2026 to support his contentions.
12. We find from the records that the present Petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on 15.05.2014 to the following effect:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
16 Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 28-10-2014, subject to payment of Rs.7,000/- to Respondent No. 1 as to and fro and other allied expenses within four weeks by way of bank draft.
Operation of the impugned order is stayed subject to depositing Rs.2,50,000/- with the District Forum within four weeks, which shall be kept in FDR initially for a period of one year."
13. There were certain discrepancies and the same was clarified by directing the District Forum to accept the fixed deposit receipt prepared in compliance of the said order. The order dated 12.09.2014 is extracted herein under:
"Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Petitioner has filed IA No. 5983 of 2014 and prayed that in compliance to order of this Commission, he got FDR prepared in the name of President, District Consumer Redressal Forum, South Goa, but District Forum has not accepted his FDR on the ground that it has not been prepared in accordance with directions of Commission, hence, District Forum may be directed to accept the aforesaid FDR.
Strictly speaking, Petitioner should have deposited this amount with the District Forum which was to be kept in FDR initially for a period of one year. Petitioner himself got FDR prepared in the name of President, District Forum which is not in accordance, but as a result of both, the situation is same, District Forum is directed to accept FDR prepared by Petitioner in the name of 17 President, District Forum in compliance to order dated 15.5.2014. M.A. allowed.
Put up on due date-28.10.2014."
14. The Petition came to be admitted later on 25.05.2016 and the case was adjourned from time to time for various reasons whereafter it came up for final hearing on 19.03.2026. Learned Counsel for the Parties have been heard at length as noted above.
15. Having considered the submissions raised it is correct that the two stated experts Mr. Mr. Manuel Pereira and Mr. Conroy D' Melo have given inspection report after having driven the car. It is also correct that they were technically qualified but on the other hand the said technical experts in their certificates have nowhere indicated the methodology adopted by them to infer any manufacturing defect in respect of the steering wheel operation. We do not find any description as to how and in what manner they inspected the equipments except driving the vehicle. The certificates indicate their experience of a drive but it does not in any way indicate an investigation and examination of the equipments in any scientific manner to indicate any inference of a manufacturing defect. Mr. Pattjoshi is correct in his submission that the distinction between a defect and a manufacturing defect have been indicated in various decisions including a recent decision of this Commission in the case of Hyundai Motors India versus Harjinder Singh and Ors. in Revision Petition No. 1037 of 2016 decided on 31.12.2024. We agree with this submission that there have 18 to be categorical findings recorded by the experts as to how the they have arrived at a conclusion regarding a manufacturing defect. The credibility of the report therefore to the extent of a manufacturing defect seems to be lacking in the present case. However the same judgment also refers to defects as understood under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In such circumstances even if the experts opinion is lacking in details, the fact remains that the defect in the operation of the steering wheel did exist.
16. Coming to the issue of low mileage Mr. Pattjoshi is correct in his submission that this is dependent upon the vehicle being driven and its utilization he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Sadanand Bhojraj versus Chairman Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2015) SCC OnLine NCDRC 3276 (Supra) to urge that no proper test was carried out to find out the defect of any low mileage.
17. Nonetheless what we find is that the Dealer himself had admitted the said stand recorded in Paragraph No. 19 - 20 of the Order of the District Commission extracted herein above followed by the findings recorded in Paragraph No. 21. The said findings have been affirmed by the State Commission and Mr. Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel has been unable to give any explanation regarding the said admission of the defects that continued in the vehicle and could not be rectified as alleged by the Complainant / Respondent No.-1.
19
18. It is therefore clear that the Complainant / Respondent No.-1 did continue to own a vehicle that was defective and the defects even if not proved as manufacturing defects had not been cured by the dealer or even by the manufacturer inspite of the fact that this defect was reported during the existence of the warranty period.
19. The dealer and the manufacturer could have replaced any such parts that were necessary for removing the defect but instead they have defied the same by explaining as if the same was a feature of the models of the car manufactured at that time. We are unable to accept any such explanation and we find that the defects had continued that has caused sufficient harassment to the Complainant who had purchased a new car and had to drive it all along with the said defects that were persisting and continuing. The continuance of using the vehicle by itself is no explanation of the defects being non-existent which has been admitted by the dealer in his own mail dispatched to the manufacturer who also did not attend to the same inspite of having promised to get it rectified.
20. We would have considered the submissions raised had there been any valid explanation to that effect but on the other hand what we find is that the direction to refund the entire amount of the vehicle was unjustified. Parts could have been replaced and the vehicle properly serviced but since the Petitioner or the dealer did not take appropriate steps the deficiency continued. We find no good ground or any reason to interfere with the 20 Impugned Orders that are based on a proper appreciation of facts based on settled principles that do not suffer from perversity. The defects and the deficiencies stood confirmed by the Fora below and we affirm the same. Even otherwise the scope of a Revision Petition is limited under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ruby (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2011) 11 SCC 269, followed by another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31.
21. However instead of issuing a direction for the refund of the entire amount, more so in the background that the vehicle continues to be operated by the Respondent No.-1 we allow this Revision Petition partly by setting aside the order of the District Commission as confirmed by the State Commission only to the extent whereby the amount of Rs.5,03,062/- has been awarded with interest, and substitute it with the amount that has already been deposited under the interim orders of this Commission dated 15.05.2014 and 12.09.2014 before the District Commission as quoted herein above. The said amount would therefore be the full and final satisfaction of the decretal amount. The aforesaid amount deposited before the District Commission together with interest, if any shall be released in favour of the Respondent No. - 1/Complainant.
21
22. The Revision Petition stands disposed off with the said directions.
...............................................
(A. P. SAHI, J) PRESIDENT ............................................... (BHARATKUMAR PANDYA) MEMBER Mss/VM/C-1/Reserved 22