SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 11301

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Hyundai Motors India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Bimal Kumar Poddar – Respondent
SC/21/RP/110/2023



Petitioner Advocates:M/S L.K.Maharana & Assoc. ,Respondent Advocate: M/s. G.M. Rath & Assoc.

COMMISSION' ODTSHA' CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL REVISIoN PETITIoN NO' 110 0F 2023 (From an order dated 20.7 ,2023 passed by the District Consumer - I in Execution case Disputes Redressal commission, sundargarh No.01 of 2018)

HYundai Motor lndia Ltd', RePresented through Area Manager'

(East Regional Office) lnfinity Benchmark'

gth Floor, plot - G1, Block - EP & GP, Sec.V, -'.700091 Salt Lake, Kolkata ... Petitioner Vtrs.

1. Bimal Kumar Poddar, S/o Late Mr Shankarlal Poddar'

R/o SunariPada, Sundargarh'

Po - Sundargarh, Ps/Town' Sundargarh (e) ltd"

2. Koshala Automobiles Through Director Mr Prakash Chandra Panigrahi, Bra hmani Tarang, Vedvyas'

- 6904L Rourkela, Sundargarh 7 ... OPP.Parties p.titffiMishra & Associates For the : M/s G'M'Rath & Associates ForOpp'PartyNo'1 PRESENT:

THEHoN,BLESHRID.K.MoHAPATRA,oFFICIATINGPRESIDENT AND MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEM BER DArED rHE t6\AUGusr, 2024 ORDER SHRI D.K.MOHAPATRA. OFFICIATING PRESIDENT This Revision Petition has been filed by Revision Petitioner challenging the order dated 20.7.2023 passed in Execution Case No. 1 of 20L8 (arising out of CC No. 51 of 20LG) vide Annexure -

1to Revision Petition.

3. The case of the complainant is that on 7.4.20!5 the complainant purchased i-20 Active, CDR| SX car for his personal use from Opp.Party No.L being registered bearing Registration No.OD15 8-1011. During the warranty period the complainant found black smoke came out from the silencer. On 27.3.201,6, complainant brought the vehicle to Opp.Party No.1 for repairing. After verification of the vehicle, Opp.Party No.1 opined that the cylinder Block Assy. is required for replacement. The complainant left the vehicle with Opp. Party No.l dealer of Hundai Motors lndia Limited, Opp. Party No. 2 for rectification of defect.

The oP No.1 did not replace or repair the defective parts of the vehicle despite sending request by email dated 19'05'2015 and legal notice dated 20.7.20L6 to the opp'Parties, rather demanded Rs.85,000/- for replacement of the said defective parts. Thereafter, on Lz.g.20L6, Opp'Party No'L sent notice to the complainant for taking delivery of the vehicle on payment of without repairing the towards repairing charges, Rs.24,9501-

actual defects. The op no.L kept the vehicle for a long time, but could not rectify the defects which amounts to deficiency in service. As such the complainant filed the Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opp'Parties'

t 3

3. On being noticed, Opp' Party Nos' and entered that and filed written version stating the appearance consumer complaint has been filed agalnst them with false

3 admitted regarding receipt allegation. opp. Paty No. 1 and of the vehicle from the complainant on 27 '3'20]:6 for noise problem and emition of black smoke from silencer but denied to have any commitment as to replacement of any Block Assembly. The complainant was not agree for engine work but wanted the engine to be replaced under the warranty, Opp.Party Nos. L intimated the fact to the manufacture for approval to replace the Block Assembly, but the manufacturer for suggested required repairs. Thereafter, Opp.PartyNo.l discussed the matter with the complainant and the complainant consented for doing the engine work without replacement of Block Assembly. Accordingly, the vehicle was repaired and made ready by 4.8.2015 for delivery but the complainant did not turn up. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opp.Party Nos.L and 3.

4.

Opp.Party No.2 the manufacture of the vehicle was set ex parte.

5.

After hearing the Consumer Complaint, learned District Commission passed the order directing the Opp.Party Nos.L and 2 manufacturer as well as service provider to return the illegal bill amount received from the complainant during delivery of the vehicle and further directed that they both jointly make an endeavor to remove the defects in the engine of the vehicle without charging any cost from the complainant and give a clear- cut certificate signed by a Sen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top