The Mysuru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked the retail detailer and manufacturer of Hyundai Verna car to pay a compensation of ₹3 lakh to a buyer in Mysuru for delivering a car some of whose parts were reportedly rusted.
The commission, in an order issued on September 8, said Advaith Motors Private Limited, Mysuru, and Hyundai Motors Corporation, Tamil Nadu, were jointly and severally liable to pay ₹3 lakh to the complainant Mr. Lokesha K.C., a resident of Metagalli in Mysuru, within two months of passing the order.
Besides, the opposite parties have also been ordered to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 towards mental agony, and deficiency in service and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The complainant Mr. Lokesha, who had purchased the car, took delivery of the vehicle on September 4, 2019, by paying ₹11.98 lakh to the retail dealer in Mysuru. But, upon finding some parts of the vehicle apparently rusted, he informed the matter to sales manager, who assured the complainant that rusted components would be replaced at the time of the first free service and also claimed that the rust would be cleared as the car is driven.
The complainant took delivery of the vehicle hesitantly based on the assurance of the sales manager, that the rust remained on the parts of the vehicle even after running for about 1,100 km. About fifteen days after the delivery of the vehicle, the complainant received the Registration Certificate (RC) card, the date of manufacturing of the vehicle was given as April 2019, which is five months before the date of delivery.
After serving a legal notice to the retail dealer and manufacturer through an advocate in February 2020 seeking replacement of the car with a new one without any defects, the complainant registered a case with the commission.
The dealer, in its version filed before the commission, claimed that the components of the car were not rusted as alleged by the complainant, but pointed out that it was “oxidation”, created due to “environmental conditions”. The dealer also contended that a new car had been given to the complainant and there was no manufacturing defect.
Manufacturer’s version
The manufacturer, in its version before the commission, pointed out that errors/omissions at the time of retailing and service of the car are the sole responsibility of the dealer. Also, the manufacturer contended that the complainant had not raised the objection to the rust at the time of the delivery.
Citing its records, the manufacturer pointed out that the complainant had been explained and clarified that there was no rust in the vehicle. It had also been explained to the complainant that formation of rust can happen due to occurrence of atmospheric corrosion whenever the metal surface becomes wet with moisture.
The commission represented by president A.K. Naveen Kumari, and members Maruthi Vaddar, and M.K. Lalitha, in its order, said that the complainant had proved deficiency in service by the dealer for delivering a car with rusted parts before ordering payment of compensation of ₹3 lakh.
