Hyundai Motor India Ltd And Its Service Centre, Liable For Selling Defective Car; NCDRC Affirms

The complainant/respondent No.1 purchased a Hyundai Car Model I 20 Magna on 31.07.2010 for ₹6,32,000/- for his personal use. Petitioner No. 1 ( Hyundai Motor India Ltd) gave a warranty/guarantee for a period of three years, i.e., 30.07.2013, or to run 80,000 kilometres. On 27.03.2012, the complainant noticed noise from the engine and took the car to the opposite Party No. 2( Paras Hyundai Prashvanath Motor (P) Ltd.).

Opposite Party No. 2, the dealer sent the complainant to Opposite party No. 3, the authorized service centre and told the complainant to leave the vehicle with the service centre as it would take two or three days to repair the car. Later, the O.P.No. 3 informed the Complainant that some parts are unavailable.

The complainant had been waiting for information for a month. Finally, on 30.04.2012, one Mr. Ravi Kumar from the Service Centre of Opposite Party No. 3 called the complainant to take delivery of the car as the same had been repaired.

The complainant couldn’t take delivery of the vehicle, as it was not starting. Since there was no information from the opposite parties for a month, the complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party Nos. 1,2,3 & 4. Afterwards he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

Findings of the District Forum:

The District Forum allowed the complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 1,3, 4, and 5 and dismissed the plea against O.P.No.2. The forum directed the opposite parties to repair the car free of cost, and if the car required new parts, paint, tire, or tube, the same be done without any charges. The forum further directed that the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical agony and financial loss and Rs.5000/- as litigation costs. The forum also instructed the opposite parties to increase the warranty period to 13 months ie, till 13.07.2013.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 filed an Appeal before the Rajasthan state Commission.

Findings of the State Commission:

The State Commission, while disposing of all the 4 appeals, affirmed the view taken by the District Forum that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

The State Commission observed that the Complainant had given the car for repair to Respondent No. 3. After repair, the same had not been delivered. The vehicle had been lying with Respondent No. 3 from 27.03.2012. Almost 5 years have passed, and now the vehicle is not in a condition to deliver.

The State Commission observed that respondent No.1 had only sold the vehicle and Respondent No.2 is just an authorized service center; therefore, they have no liability.

The State Commission stated that all the responsibility is of Respondents No.3,4, and 5 and directed them to make payment as per the Order. Respondents 3,4 and 5 were ordered to pay the amount towards mental agony litigation charges, as per the Order of the District Forum.

The Commission modified the Order passed by the District Forum and directed the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of ₹4,74,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 25.06.2012.

Being aggrieved with the impugned Order passed by the Rajasthan State Commission, the Opposite party Nos.4 & 5 filed the Revision Petition before the National Commission.

The Petitioners/ Opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 argued that both the fora below failed to appreciate that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant has already covered a mileage of 44,421 km as on 27.03.2012. The vehicle was ready for delivery on 30.04.2012. The complainant did not take delivery of the car as he did not want to pay the repair charges. He submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to set aside the Order passed by the Fora below.

Respondent No.1 (Complainant) stated that the Order of the State Commission is a well-reasoned Order.

Findings of the National Commission:

The Commission relied on the Order passed by the Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of the Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited, and the Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.

The National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the Order passed by the State Commission.

Case Name: HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. & ANR. Vs HANSRAJ SIYAG & 3 ORS

Case No: REVISION PETITION NO. 2048 OF 2017

Date of Order : 14.02.2023

Counsel For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Srivastava, Ms. Moulshree Shukla, Advocates

Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Ruhil, Advocate, R-1 , R-2to4 Ex Parte vide Order dt.10.04.18

Click Here To Read/Dwonload Order