Manufacturers are liable to remedy defects during warranty, despite authorized dealers' involvement, reinforcing consumer protection standards.

ORDER

IA/691/2020 (Condonation of delay) in FA No.102 of 2020 & IA/4744/2022 (Condonation of delay) in FA No. 362 of 2022

For the reasons stated in the respective applications, the delay in filing the respective appeals is condoned.

FA No. 102 of 2020 and FA No. 362 of 2022

1. FA No.102 of 2020 has been preferred by the complainant in original complaint (appellant in FA No. 102 of 2020), aggrieved against Order dated 29.07.2019 passed by learned Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore whereby the complaint has been partly allowed as under:-

“The above complaint is allowed in part. OP Nos. 1 and 3 Manufacturer and Authorized Dealer respectively are jointly and severally directed to repair the vehicle of the complainant with replacement of any defective parts free of cost and deliver the same to the complainant within 3 months from the date of this order.

The Ops are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Costs of Rs.10,000/-.”

2. Aggrieved against the said impugned order dated 29.07.2018, a cross appeal No.362/2022 has also been preferred on behalf of OP No.1 & 2 (manufacturer in original complaint) and appellant in FA No. 362 of 2022).

FA No.102 of 2020 is taken as lead case and the appellants and respondents in respective appeals are hereinafter referred to as complainant/opposite parties as appearing in the complaint, for sake of convenience.

3. In brief, as per the case of complainant, Hyundai Senta Ferdi 2 WD was purchased by him from authorized dealer OP-3 namely, Blue Hyundai, Unit of Saphil Motors Pvt. Ltd., BMS Bengaluru (Respondent No.3 herein) for domestic use vide invoice dated 29.12.2011 for consideration of Rs.26,91,660/- after availing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) and the vehicle was delivered on 05.01.2012. The grievance of complainant is that pick-up of the vehicle abruptly reduced from 120 Kms. to 60 Kms., due to technical defects in the fuel pump assembly, injector assembly and gas-gate fuel. The same was brought to the notice of service centre (OP No.4 Ram Hyundai Four Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., Hubli) for rectification.

4. Vide letter dated 14.03.2016. OP-4 informed the complainant that vehicle reported to workshop for repairing on 18.03.2015 with complaint of power loss on running. Further, despite checking through all parameters as per schedule, the problem could not be identified and the vehicle was sent to Bangalore for further inspection. It is further the case of complainant that the vehicle was sent by opposite party No. 3 to the workshop at Advaith Hyundai, Bengaluru for tracing the technical defects and correcting the same. However, the defects could not be rectified and the vehicle is stated to be lying with Advaith Hyundai Motors in Bangalore showroom for a year prior to filing of the complaint on 09.11.2016.

5. A legal notice dated 24.03.2016 was further forwarded by the complainant to the opposite parties, but since no response was received, complainant was constrained to prefer a complaint before the learned State Commission, Bangalore seeking refund of the cost of the vehicle with interest and compensation towards mental agony.

6. The complaint has been partly allowed by the learned State Commission vide order dated 29.07.2019, as noticed above, directing the manufacturer(OP-1) and Authorised Dealer (OP-3) to repair the vehicle of the complainant with replacement of any defective parts free of cost and deliver the same to the complainant within three months.

7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the learned State Commission, FA No.362 of 2022 has been preferred by OP No.1 & 2 (manufacturer) on the ground that there is unexplained delay of about five years in filing the complaint by the complainan