Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Branch Manager, OSL Hyundai – Petitioner
versus
Ruparanjan Das and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.598 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 18/02/2021 in Appeal No.367/2015 of the State Commission Orissa)
Decided on 25.10.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Revision Petition – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Against the Order dt. 18.02.2021 of the State Commission - Respondent/complainant purchased new Verna Car for Rs.10,8,294/-from Petitioner - Mechanical trouble occurred after a few days, although the car was attended, defect wasn’t removed fully – Respondent visited workshop many a times but of no avail - Due to manufacturing defect in the car as well as deficiency in service, complaint filed before the Distt. Forum - Distt. Forum directed Petitioner No. 1,2 & 4 to repair the vehicle per the repair estimate of Petitioner No. 4 free of cost, deliver vehicle in perfect running condition within 2 months, pay compensatory interest @12% p.a. on the cost of vehicle of Rs.10,08,294/- - Appeal filed by Petitioners dismissed by the State Commission – Hence this Revision Petition – Findings of this Commission: From the technical expert report submitted by the authorised service centre, proved that water entered in car’s engine which damaged the engine piston etc. – Petitioner failed to prove that the car was run in flooded area - Car was within warranty prd. - If any manufacturing defect occurred, it was liable to be repaired by the petitioner free of cost (Paras 2, 3, 4 & 9)
Result: Revision having no merit is dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Rajnish Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, dated 18.02.2021, passed in First Appeal No. 367 of 2015 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puri, dated 30.05.2015, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 275 of 2013), by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties No.1,2 & 4 to repair the vehicle as per the repair estimate dated 3.8.2013 and dated 16.11.2014 of Aditya Car Care Pvt. Ltd, opposite party No.4 free of cost and deliver the vehicle in perfect running condition within two months and pay compensatory interest @12% per annum on the cost of the vehicle of Rs.10,08,294/- from 3.8.2013 till it is repaired. If opposite parties failed to comply with the directions above within stipulated period, then the interest was enhanced @18% per annum and cost of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. The Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
3. Ruparanjan Das (Respondent No.1) filed CC No.275 of 2013 for directing opposite parties No.1 to 4 for payment of Rs.13 lakhs as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
4. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased new Verna Car bearing Engine No.D4FBCU098450 and Registration No.OR-05-AW-774 on 25.4.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,8,294/-from Hyundai Motors India Private Limited, opposite party No.1. After using few days some mechanical trouble occurred for which a complaint was made to the opposite party No.1 although the car was attended, but the defect was not removed fully. On 24.07.2013 Service Inspector of opposite party No.1 inspected the car and noticed various defects inside the engine and other parts were damaged. The complainant immediately informed about the condition of the car to the opposite parties. One Amiya Kumar Behuria, the Engineer of the opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and took the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party. Thereafter, the complaint made inquiry several times from the opposite party and requested them to repair the car and delivered to him, but neither the car was repaired nor, it was delivered to him. On the pretext that for the problem of the car the Company is being approached and it will be done in good condition soon. The complainant many times visited the workshop of Aditya car Care Private Limited, opposite party No.4, but no useful purpose was served. Due to manufacturing defect in the car as well as the deficiency in service, complainant was suffering mental agony. On these allegations, the complaint was filed. It may be mentioned that in the complaint opposite party No.1 was Divisional Manager Hyundai Motors India Private Limited, opposite party no.2 was Branch Manager. OSL Hyundai unit and opposite party No.4 Branch Manager Aditya Hyundai, Aditya car Care Private Limited, which is authorised workshop of Hundai Motors India Limited and opposite party No.3 was TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, who was insurer of the car.
5. All the opposite parties have filed their separate written reply. Divisional Manager Hyundai Motors India Private Limited in his written reply has stated that aforementioned car was purchased by the complainant on 25.04.2012 and a car in perfect running without any technical or mechanical defect was delivered to him. The complainant used the car with his complete satisfaction upto mileage 14505 Km. within 15 months. On 24.07.2013, the car was reported to the workshop of Aditya car Care Private Limited for accidental repair with the allegation of break down car at Puri due to flooding. On examination, it was found that car was driven in flooded area, therefore, the Service Engineer informed the complainant that accidental repair work would be carried out on chargeable basis only after approval of the insurer. Insurer was informed and the cla
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
