Hyundai Motor India Ltd vs Neelam Trading Company

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.12.2008, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in two appeals, FA -1282/2006, "MGF Automobiles Limited versus Neelam Trading Company and Ors." and FA -1283/2006, "Neelam Trading Company versus Himgiri Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and Ors." vide which, the order dated 30.10.2006, passed by the District Forum, allowing consumer complaint No. 697/2005, filed by the respondent No. 1, Neelam Trading Company, was modified.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1, Neelam Trading Company filed the consumer complaint in question against three opposite parties, namely, Himgiri Hyundai, OP No. 1, who is respondent No. 3 in the present revision petition and is the dealer, M/s. MGF Automobiles Limited, who is respondent No. 2 and another dealer, and the present petitioner -cum -OP No. 3, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., who is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. It was alleged in the consumer complaint that complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased a santro xing car from the dealer Himgiri Hyundai, OP No. 1/respondent No. 3 under hire -purchase agreement with ICICI Bank Limited. The complainant was assured at the time of purchase that it was a vehicle meeting Euro III emission standards. The said car started making noise from the steering wheel as well as from the rear side break, from the very beginning. The complainant approached OP No. 1, Himgiri Hyundai complaining about the defect in the vehicle. He visited OP No. 1 a number of times following which the steering assembly of the vehicle was changed; still the noise did not stop. The complainant then took up the matter with M/s. MGF Automobiles OP -2/respondent 2 and also started communication with the manufacturer petitioner. However, the defects in the vehicle could not be rectified although OP -1 and 2 opened each and every part of the vehicle for their hit and trial methods. The complainant alleged that OP -1 and 2 were pressurising him to forego an amount of ?75,000/ - and get the rest of the money back, but the complainant was seeking replacement of the vehicle and damages, or the entire amount as refund with damages. The consumer complaint in question was then filed seeking compensation of ?5,20,000/ - in total alongwith interest.

THE District Forum vide their order dated 13.10.2006 directed that OP -2 MGF Automobiles Limited shall return the car to the complainant free from all defects. In addition, the OPs shall jointly and severally pay a sum of ?10,000/ - as compensation for mental agony suffered and a sum of ?2,000/ - towards cost of litigation. Against this order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed, one by MGF Automobiles Limited, OP -2 and the other by complainant himself. Vide impugned order, it was directed that the manufacturer Hyundai Motor India Limited shall refund the cost of the vehicle to the complainant with depreciated value of 5% and shall also collect the vehicle from its service centre and have the registration transferred from the name of the complainant. It was also directed that manufacturer OP -3 shall pay a compensation of ?20,000/ - for mental agony and ?10,000/ - as cost of litigation. It is against this order that the petitioner manufacturer has filed the present revision petition. During hearing before this Commission, the following interim order was passed on 15.07.2009: - "Heard the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Admit. In the interest of justice we are inclined to issue the following directions pending final hearing of the matter.

The petitioner shall certify that the car in question is road -worthy and after the same is certified, the car shall be taken by the complainant and the complainant shall be furnished a copy of the certificate of road -worthiness of the car.

In the road -worthy certificate, audometer reading of the car shall be indicated. The certificate shall also mention whether the vehicle is Euro I, II or III.

Car shall be handed over in accordance with the direction no. 1, by the respondent no. 3.

The petitioner shall extend the warranty in the respect of the car by six months from the date of handing over of the car.

The complainant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the President, District Forum and the withdrawal shall be subject to the final order to be passed in the revision. Since, there are large number of revisions pending prior to 2009, this revision petition shall be listed as per turn after due notice. DASTI in addition to both the parties."

DURING hearing before us, on 12.03.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner manufacturer stated that they had fully complied with the order dated 15.07.2009 passed by this Commission. The car in question, was made in road -worthy condition and a fitness certificate dated 21.08.2009 was issued and sent to the complainant vide letter dated 07.09.2009 by M/s. Himgiri Hyundai, respondent No. 3 and authorised dealer of the petitioner. However, despite repeated intimation/calls made to the complainant, they had failed to collect the vehicle. The petitioner was asked to file an affidavit in support of their assertion, which they did on 17.03.2015 and enclosed copy of the certificate dated 21.08.2009 with the affidavit, which says as follows: - "To Whom It May Concern We have checked this Hyundai Santro Car (Bearing VIN -MALAB51HR5M615805, Engine No. G4HD5M520129 and Registration No. DL8CN0443, Colour Bright Silver) at odometer reading 4195 Kms and found it to be in a road -worthy condition. Also we have carried out pollution test which shows that the emissions meet the local regulation norms. We have attached a copy of the certificate for reference. Also the mentioned car complies with Euro II emission norms. "

ALTHOUGH the above certificate says that the car complies with Euro II emission norms, but it has been stated in the affidavit that the same was a typographical error and in fact, the car complied with Euro III emission norms. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that they had earlier sent a letter dated 24.08.2005, a copy of which is on record, in which they had stated clearly that the vehicle was in perfect running condition and had requested to take the delivery of the vehicle from M/s. Himgiri Hyundai. The complainant had, however, failed to take the vehicle back. M/s. Himgiri Hyundai had also sent a letter dated 10.11.2005 to the complainant, requesting them to collect the car from their workshop and also stated that it was in perfect condition. However, despite that, the complainant chose to file the consumer complaint in question.

THE learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 1 could not offer any satisfactory explanation as to why the complainant failed to take the delivery of the vehicle after the issue of letters/certificate from the OPs in the year 2005, and then after the letters issued in pursuance of order dated 15.07.09 of this Commission.

WE have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, after admitting the present revision petition for hearing, this Commission gave directions to the petitioner to certify that the car in question was road -worthy and also to give a certificate to this effect and then to hand over the car to the complainant. As stated by the petitioners, they had fully complied with the directions issued by this Commission on 15.07.2009, but despite issuance of the necessary certificate and reminding the complainant to take the vehicle back, he failed to take it back. The complainant has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation as to why he chose not to collect the vehicle, once needful had been done by the petitioners in compliance of the orders passed by this Commission. It shall, therefore, be appropriate that the complainant obtains the delivery of the vehicle from the petitioner/dealer forthwith. In the interest of justice, it is directed that the petitioner may ensure that the vehicle is in road -worthy condition as on today and they must give a fresh certificate duly signed by a responsible technical officer of their company to this effect. In the event of the petitioner not complying with this direction, the complainant will be entitled to seek execution of the impugned order. With these directions, the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are set aside and the revision petition stands disposed off.