DON PAUL Vs. DURGA HYUNDAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 17 days delay in filing the revision petitions is condoned, subject to just exceptions.

(2.) Sh. Don Pal, the complainant, purchased a Hyundai Make i-20 ASTA 1.2 E3 Berry Red on 23.04.2009, for a sum of Rs.4,96,512/- from M/s. Durga Hyundai, OP1 with financial assistance from Axis Bank, and insured the same with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., OP3. The complainant had to go to different stations within the District of Darjeeling. Immediately, after purchase of the said vehicle, he felt that the car is not pulling well and losing acceleration. The power of the car was very poor even when driving in lower gear. After the initial motion, he could not apply second gear during hill-driving while going up because the car started making vibrations and very rapidly the speed decreased, which was risky and unsafe in driving, especially in the hills. The complainant informed the Dealer, OP1 about the defect, who assured him that all problems will automatically be sorted out after first free service, i.e., on 17.06.2009. However, from the date of purchase till the third service, the problem remained the same. After third service, on 21.05.2010, the complainant again took the car to OP1 with the same problem, when Service Adviser of Siliguri, Rajeev Mishra and Service Engineer from Kolkata, Shantanu Bhaduri, thoroughly inspected the car and being fully satisfied about the inherent manufacturing defect, advised for change of engine and it was replaced on 10.07.2010, free of cost. Even after the change of engine, the same problem continued. Another Mechanic was deputed who inspected the vehicle. He informed OPs 1 & M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. 2 that the trouble in the car was not at all sorted out. On 04.10.2010, the complainant took the car to the OP1, but it could not solve the problem. Finally, he took the car to OP1, on 17.11.2010. OP1 could not solve the problem and since then the car was lying with OP1 and further, for the last 5 years', the complainant is deprived of use and enjoyment of his car.

(3.) According to OP 1, the engine was replaced on request of complainant. On 07.10.2010, OP1 issued a letter to the complainant stating that the vehicle was found to be road-worthy, as per standard satisfaction and norms. The vehicle was in proper condition and there is no other pending job to be carried out in the workshop. It also requested the complainant to take delivery of the car from the workshop. OP1 is an agent/Dealer of OP2 and if there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the car, the OP2 would be liable for such defect.