Discolouration Can’t Be Due To Pollution Levels, New Delhi District Commission Rejects Kia Motors Arguments, Holds Liable

Brief Facts:

Mr Sameer Varma (“Complainant”), purchased a Kia Seltos car, manufactured by Kia Motors India (“Manufacturer”) through their authorized dealer, Frontier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (“Dealer”), for a total amount of Rs.19,41,596/-. Soon after the purchase, the complainant noticed rusting of the chrome parts on the vehicle and reported this issue to the Dealer. The Dealer cleaned the rusted parts and charged for it. However, the issue of rusting of chrome parts reoccurred during the 3rd service. The Complainant contacted the Dealer again, and they cleaned the rusted parts once more, assuring that the problem wouldn’t happen again. Subsequently, the issue persisted, and the Complainant contacted the customer care department of the Manufacturer. As a result, the Dealer took the car to its workshop after conducting an inspection. The rear right tail light was replaced and cleaned. Although the rust was removed, there was significant discolouration. When this was reported by the Complainant, the Dealer attributed the discolouration to the pollution level in the city and claimed that it was not covered under the Manufacturer’s warranty. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi (“District Commission”).

The Manufacturer contended that it sent a representative to inspect the vehicle, who authorized the replacement of certain parts as a goodwill gesture. It further claimed that the rusting and discolouration of chrome parts were due to factors such as increasing pollution, hard water residue, and the use of non-approved cleaning products on the vehicle. On the other hand, the Dealer was proceeded against ex-parte.

The Complainant argued that the rusting and discolouration of the chrome parts were due to poor product quality and not related to factors like pollution or hard water. He disputed the claim that non-approved cleaning products were used and argued that the issue was not due to washing with water. The Complainant sought compensation for the defective chrome parts, damages for the inconvenience and mental agony caused, and legal costs.

Observations by the Commission:

Upon careful examination of the evidence, the District Commission noted that the issue of rusting was brought to the attention of the Manufacturer and the Dealer within one year of the vehicle’s purchase. Despite attempts to address the problem through cleaning and some part replacements as a goodwill gesture, the issue persisted. In turn, the Manufacturer and the Dealer had sought to attribute the blame to the Complainant for factors such as frequent water washing and the use of non-approved materials. The District Commission, referring to the argument that the problem persisted to factors like pollution and hard water, asserted that the problem was rooted in product quality rather than external factors.

Consequently, the District Commission noted that the Manufacturer and the Dealer were deficient in their service and were therefore directed to pay the Complainant a total of Rs.70,000/-. This sum was to be paid within two months from the receipt of this order.

Case Title: Sameer Varma vs Kia Motors India and Anr.

Case No.: CC/224/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.

Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order