HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD Vs. NEELAM TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.12.2008, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in two appeals, FA-1282/2006, "MGF Automobiles Limited versus Neelam Trading Company & Ors." & FA-1283/2006, "Neelam Trading Company versus Himgiri Hyundai Motor India Ltd. & Ors." vide which, the order dated 30.10.2006, passed by the District Forum, allowing consumer complaint No. 697/2005, filed by the respondent No. 1, Neelam Trading Company, was modified.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1, Neelam Trading Company filed the consumer complaint in question against three opposite parties, namely, Himgiri Hyundai, OP No. 1, who is respondent No. 3 in the present revision petition and is the dealer, M/s. MGF Automobiles Limited, who is respondent No. 2 and another dealer, and the present petitioner-cum-OP No. 3, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., who is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. It was alleged in the consumer complaint that complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased a santro xing car from the dealer Himgiri Hyundai, OP No. 1/respondent No. 3 under hire-purchase agreement with ICICI Bank Limited. The complainant was assured at the time of purchase that it was a vehicle meeting Euro III emission standards. The said car started making noise from the steering wheel as well as from the rear side break, from the very beginning. The complainant approached OP No. 1, Himgiri Hyundai complaining about the defect in the vehicle. He visited OP No. 1 a number of times following which the steering assembly of the vehicle was changed; still the noise did not stop. The complainant then took up the matter with M/s. MGF Automobiles OP-2/respondent 2 and also started communication with the manufacturer petitioner. However, the defects in the vehicle could not be rectified although OP-1 & 2 opened each and every part of the vehicle for their hit and trial methods. The complainant alleged that OP-1 & 2 were pressurising him to forego an amount of ?75,000/- and get the rest of the money back, but the complainant was seeking replacement of the vehicle and damages, or the entire amount as refund with damages. The consumer complaint in question was then filed seeking compensation of ?5,20,000/- in total alongwith interest.

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 13.10.2006 directed that OP-2 MGF Automobiles Limited shall return the car to the complainant free from all defects. In addition, the OPs shall jointly and severally pay a sum of ?10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered and a sum of ?2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Against this order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed, one by MGF Automobiles Limited, OP-2 and the other by complainant himself. Vide impugned order, it was directed that the manufacturer Hyundai Motor India Limited shall refund the cost of the vehicle to the complainant with depreciated value of 5% and shall also collect the vehicle from its service centre and have the registration transferred from the name of the complainant. It was also directed that manufacturer OP-3 shall pay a compensation of ?20,000/- for mental agony and ?10,000/- as cost of litigation. It is against this order that the petitioner manufacturer has filed the present revision petition.