Back
FA/118/2016 D.O.D.: 24.11.2023
HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. VS P.R.MEENA & ANR.
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 7
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 29.02.2016
Date of hearing: 07.08.2023
Date of Decision: 24.11.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.-118/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD..
A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
2ND, 5TH,& 6TH FLOOR
CORPORATE ONE (BANNI BUILDING),
PLOT NO.5 COMMERCIAL CENTRE,
JASOLA, NEW DELHI-110025.
(Through: Fox Mandal & Co.)
…Appellant
VERSUS
1.P.R.MEENA,
PLOT NO.649, SECTOR 18-B
L&T APARTMENTS, DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110075.
…Respondent in Person
2.MR. DEEP HYUNDAI,
K-1,RAJAPURI, DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110059.
3.HINDUSTAN HYUNDAI,
149, JHONTWARA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
JAIPUR RAJASTHAN.
…Respondents
FA/118/2016 D.O.D.: 24.11.2023
HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. VS P.R.MEENA & ANR.
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 7
CORAM:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present:
Mr. Abhishek Singh, along with Ms. Alisa Sharma
counsel for the appellant.
Mr. P.R.Meena, respondent in person.
PER :HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1.
The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“…… The short case of the complainant is that he has
purchased a brand new Hyundai I 10 car with Reg.
no.DL4CAJ8427 having engine no.G4HG9M800466 and
MALAM51BR9M364847 on 04.09.09. It is alleged that on
03.10.09, i.e. after month of running at about 9:30 AM,
when complainant was driving the vehicle at a normal
speed of 60-65 km/hr, the rear tyre along with rim, came
out from the shaft coupling due to which the vehicle met
with an accident & suffered injuries. It is alleged that
complainant brought the same to the notice of Op through
emails from 10.10.09 to 27.01.10 (placed on record), and
then issued a legal notice Exh.A, and seeks replacement of
car and compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for mental agony,
harassment etc. He filed an affidavit in its support of his
case.
The OP filed a reply and evidence by affidavit stating that
the car in new condition was delivered in without any
technical or manufacturing defects or mechanical defects.
Its plea is that complainant drove the vehicle in rough and
negligence manner, leading to accident and injuries. It
referred to various warranty policy for defective parts etc.
FA/118/2016 D.O.D.: 24.11.2023
HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. VS P.R.MEENA & ANR.
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 7
The OP does not deny the fact the complainant informed
OP by emails repeatedly pointing out the accident due to
tyre with rim coming out from shaft; and request of
replacement etc.
2.
The District Commission after taking into consideration the material
available on record passed the order dated 29.10.2015, whereby it held
as under:
“We have considered the rival case & material on record.
The Complainant issued various emails informing of the
accident and taking of ca to workshop near Jaipur. OP in
reply emails have admitted the emails received but in none
of them it questioned the fact of tyre or rim not coming out,
nor it got the vehicle inspected at workshop, if it had any
doubt, it would have chec
