NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(Against
the order dated 14.02.2007 in Appeal No. 15/2007 of the State Commission,
M/s.
Hyundai Motors India Ltd.
Through
its authorized signatory,
Mr.
Abhijit Kumar ( Legal &
Secretarial)
A-30. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area
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,
New Delhi-110 002.
2. M/s. Rama Motors (P) Ltd.,
A2/12, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110 029. …
Respondents
BEFORE:
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
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
“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
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
Spaic … M/W“
Second service
was on 22.3.2005 after running the car for 6,133 kms.
“Customer’s
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 that’s 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).
“Customer’s
request:
Running
Repair
Others
/ Check black smoke coming
Diesel
smell / Check smell”
In
the complaint it is stated that after inspection by the Petitioner’s 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
The Complainant further
stated that a complaint for the 4th time was lodged on
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
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
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,
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
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)