HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No. 3 against Respondents/Complainant and Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 challenging the common impugned Order dtd. 8/8/2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, in First Appeal bearing Nos. 27 of 2018 and 23 of 2018. Vide such Order, the State Commission had modified the Order dtd. 1/12/2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, in Consumer Complaint No. 536 of 2017 while deciding the First Appeal bearing No. 27 of 2018. Vide the same Order, the Ld. State Commission had also allowed the Appeal bearing No. 23 of 2018 while setting aside the Order of Ld. District Forum qua Opposite Party No.1.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a Creta SUV Car from the Opposite Party No.1 on 21/4/2017 for Rs.12,58,641.00. Subsequently, the Complainant spent Rs.32,438.00 on insurance of the vehicle and Rs.68,959.00 on registration. At the time of delivery, the Opposite Parties had handed over a Service Book and Warranty Card to the Complainant enlisting all the conditions of Warranty. It was the case of the Complainant that in the first week of May, 2017, while driving the said vehicle, the Complainant came to know about an unusual sound coming from the vehicle at the time of applying breaks. Consequently, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 on 4/5/2017 but the Complainant was asked to come after one week due to the lifts installed in the Workshop being out of order. Thereafter, the Complainant took the vehicle to the Workshop of Opposite Party No. 2 on 8/5/2017, which is also an Authorised Service Station of Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that the brake drums of the vehicle were required to be changed and they installed used drums in order to check the defects in the brake but they could not detect the real cause of unusual sound coming from the vehicle. Further, on 15/6/2017, an engineer from Ludhiana was called by the Opposite Party No.2 who got the brake drums changed but the defect in the vehicle could not be repaired. Again, the Opposite Party No.2 changed the brake drums and leather pads of the brakes on 16/6/2017, however, the defect could not be repaired. It was contended that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 failed to detect the defect in vehicle despite changing different things. The Complainant also came to know about another defect in the vehicle while driving the vehicle in rain i.e., leakage of water from the left front door.

(3.) Therefore, the Complainant, being aggrieved by such acts of the Opposite Parties and further on their failure to replace or refund the sum paid, filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in services and cheating by the Opposite Parties, as a defective vehicle was sold to the Complainant, seeking refund of the sum paid along with interest and expenses of insurance and registration, Rs.5,00,000.00 as compensation and litigation costs.