HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD vs USHARANI PARTHASARATHY

APPELLANT is the 2nd opposite party, the 1st respondent is the complainant, 2nd respondent is the 1st opposite party before the District Forum.

THE complaint is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances. The complainant purchased a Santro Car for a sum of Rs. 2. 95 lakh from the opposite parties during November 1998. 1st opposite party is a dealer and the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. 2nd opposite party undertook the servicing of the car. 2nd opposite party also offered a warranty for a period of two years initially, which was later on extended by one more year. According to the complainant, ever since the date of purchase of vehicle, she has been noticing certain defects, which are promptly reported to the 2nd opposite party. Inspite of such reporting and the rectification being done by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant was forced to approach the 2nd opposite party repeatedly for very same defects. Within a short span of time, the complainant has to approach the 2nd opposite party to repair the car atleast for about 20 times. Finally, complainant was constrained to send lawyer''s notices, for which there was no response, even though on one occasion the 2nd opposite party deputed their mechanics to attend the vehicle, for which a bill had also been raised for a sum of Rs. 7,179. Under the said circumstances, the complainant approached the District Forum, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and also to replace the vehicle. The appellant/2nd opposite party resisted the complaint by contending that all the defects, which was rectified were arose out of normal wear and tear. Such minor repairs may occur in several cases, wherever the vehicle was not used properly by the owners/drivers of the vehicle. Whenever the complainant has approached the 2nd opposite party, prompt action was initiated and all the repairs were attended to and as such it cannot be pointed out that there is deficiency on their part and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The District Forum on perusal of the material evidence available on record as well as on hearing oral arguments on either side, allowed the complaint, wherein a direction was issued as against the 2nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards compensation and a cost of Rs. 2,000. The District Forum while allowing the said complaint, took note of the fact that in the meanwhile the complainant was constrained to sell the vehicle due to inconvenience caused to her on various occasions and as such the prayer requesting replacement of the vehicle was not granted. Against the said order the present appeal is filed by the 2nd opposite party.

LEARNED Counsel for appellant vehemently contended that it is not correct to state that there is deficiency on the part of the 2nd opposite party. All the job cards would suggest that the 2nd opposite party has initiated prompt action to repair of such defects, which are only minor in nature. It is further contended that the very fact is that the complainant has sold the vehicle would show that she has made to use of the same in an effective manner and as such the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that due to the fault of the owner of the vehicle, more particularly the accident which took place, lot of repairs come in the way to the vehicle and as such the complaint is not based on true facts. Per contra, the learned Counsel for complainant would submit that it is not correct to state the vehicle has met with any major accident, resulting in sending the vehicle to the workshop for effecting repairs. Only on two occasions the vehicle was sent to the workshop, pertaining to minor accident, which has got nothing to do with the complaints which were noticed immediately on the purchase of the car. It is further contended that the District Forum has considered all aspects and also the relevant materials on records and as such no interference is call for.

WE have considered the rival claims of the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased in the month of November 1998. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for complainant, the vehicle was sent to the workshop nearly on twenty occasions which fact was accepted by the District Forum. There is no other contra material produced to repudiate the said claim that the vehicle was not attended nearly twenty times. That apart, Exhibits viz. B15 to B19 discloses that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the 2nd opposite party on the following dates viz. 29. 4. 1999, 6. 5. 1999, 28. 9. 1999, 8. 10. 1999 and 30. 11. 99. A perusal of the above exhibits would show that frequently the vehicle was sent for repair. Normally no prudent person would have sent the new vehicle for repair to the workshop and thereby the said individual would not be in a position to make use of the vehicle. The very fact that the complainant has chosen to send the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party''s workshop for repair repeatedly would substantiate that she was not in a position to make use of the vehicle on number of days immediately after the purchase. It is also pertinent to point out that the complainant has filed an application in CMP 55/2003 before the District Forum for a direction to produce job cards by the opposite party to substantiate her claim. Nothing prevented the 2nd opposite party in producing the job cards. It is also to be pointed out that even though the complainant has sent various lawyer''s notices, which are marked as Exs. A9 to A14, there was no response on behalf of the 2nd opposite party. Even though a contention is raised to the effect that the Service Engineers were deputed on one occasion to test the vehicle, after receipt of lawyer''s notice, the 2nd opposite party ought to have sent a reply to show that they have taken all efforts to rectify the defects and there is no deficiency on their part. It appears that the 2nd opposite party is very careful in not sending any communication in writing to the complainant, in spite of several lawyer''s notices were sent to them. That apart, a perusal of Ex. A2, dated nil. discloses that the complainant has made a request to rectify the said defects at least on the said occasion, without fail. According to the complainant, the following defects were indicated: 1. Steering Box Noise 2. Right side rear door rattling 3. Rear left side noise near petrol tap 4. Seat noise 5. Dicky noise 6. Left side head lamp shake

Subsequently, by another communication under Ex. A3, the complainant has pointed out the following defects. 1. Idling very high immediately after starting 2. Engine raises very high while A/c. is on 3. Noise in the silencer while running 4. A/c effect is very low 5. Peeling of paint on the left side below the roof

THEREAFTER in her lawyer''s notice in Ex. A9, dated 26. 7. 2002, the complainant has pointed the following defects: 1. Steering Box Noise 2. Right side rear door rattling 3. Rear left side noise near petrol tap 4. Seat noise 5. Dicky noise 6. Left side head lamp shake

IN subsequent lawyer''s notices, the similar defects were pointed out. Even though it was contended on behalf of the appellant/ 2nd opposite party that the above complaints arose due to the accident occurred, a perusal of the relevant exhibits viz. Ex. B9 and B11 discloses the following details. Ex. B9 is the job card wherein it is indicated as Accident Repair. The total cost involved therein is Rs. 3,100. The work attended as per the said job card is attending rear bumper, and job work in petrol tank assembly and other minor works.

Similarly in Ex. B11, though it is pertaining to an accident repair, only a small work of replacement is attended and total estimate works out to Rs. 1,559. A comparative details of Exs. B9 and B11 with Exs. A2 , A3 and A9 and other lawyer notices discloses that there is no nexus with regard to the nature of the repairs attended by the 2nd opposite party connecting with the accident. In the light of the above facts, we are not in a position to accept that all the repairs arose out the accident that took place.

A perusal of the order further discloses that the complainant has gone to the extent of selling the vehicle in view of the fact that she was not in a position to bear inconvenience she has undergone with the frequent repairs. All these facts point out that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and as such we do not see any infirmity on the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly the above appeal is dismissed. However there will be no order as to cost in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.