STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                         First Appeal No.880 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 16.07.2018

                                                               Date of Decision: 09.06.2022

Yash Pal S/o Sh.Surender Pal R/o Village Nanu Kalan Tehsil-Pataudi Distt Gurgaon Presently R/o H.No.330, Sector-4-A, Dharuhera, Distt.Rewari

…..Appellant

Versus

1. M/s Safdarjang Hyundai 255, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122016 trough its authorized representative.
2. M/s Superon Hyundai, Plot No.106, Sector-37, Pace City-1, Gurgaon 122015 through its authorized representative.
3. M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Plot No.H-1, Sicot Industrial Park, Irrundagattuaokottai,Taluka,Kancheepuram,Tamil Nadu, through its authorized representative.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

Present:-    Mr.Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent  Nos.1 and 2.

                   Mr.Vineet Mittal, Advocate for the respondent No.3

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 52 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.    

2.      The present appeal No.880 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.287 of 2016, which was dismissed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that on 16.07.2012, complainant purchased a Verna car vide registration No.HR 36S 3333 from opposite party No.1, which was warranted against manufacture defect for a period of two years from the date of purchase extendable for another one year after payment of extra amount.  On 05.11.2012, he was driving the car at moderate speed when all of a sudden, all the four wheels of car got jammed.  He immediately contacted the OP No.3 through OP No.1 via email, which they did not respond. He repeatedly asked the OP to replace his car as the same was having manufacturing defect. On 02.07.2014 against to his surprise when he was driving the car, its air bag opened automatically without any accident or the car against anything striking. Again he contacted the OP No.1via mail, wherein the OP NO.1 replied that they have advised their regional office to look into the matter. In the meantime, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and others and requested them to repair the car and make it functional but they charged him an amount of Rs.1,37,050/- towards repair of the car saying that defect was not covered under the warranty. Despite repeated requests, the OPs did not replace the car. Thereafter he got a legal notice served upon OPs, but,  without any response. Finally complainant filed consumer complaint bearingNo.270 of 2014 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari on 04.09.2016, which was   dismissed with liberty to file fresh one before in competent forum due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Thus there being deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, present complaint was filed.

4.      O.P.Nos.1  and 2 filed written statement of defence admitting that complainant purchased the car in question from answering opposite party no.1 having warranty of two years subject to terms and conditions.  It was denied that on 05.11.2012 complainant was driving the car at moderate speed when all of a sudden all the four wheels of complainant’s car got jammed.  It was also denied that complainant immediately contacted OP No.3 through OP No.1 via email.  It was also denied that complainant repeatedly asked answering OP to replace his vehicle as the same was having a manufacturing defect.  The car in question was not having manufacturing defect, therefore