Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs National Institute of Technology Raipur

Through Varun Panta, S/o Shri O.P. Panta, Working As Assistant Manager, Legal & Secretariat, with Hyundai Motor India Limited (Petitioner) Having Its Registered Office At Irrungattukottai, NH-4, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu- 606117;

¶10

And its Sales And Marketing Office At C-11 & 11A, Urban Estate-II, City Centre, Sector- 20, Gurugram- 122009

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

versus

¶13

National Institute Of Technology Raipur GE Road, Amanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492010

¶14

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhattisgarh New Bus Stand, Pandri Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492004

¶15

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur RDA Building, Phool Chowk, Raipur,

¶16

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shivrup Sharma R/o F-3, Panscheel Nagar, Opposite Chhattisgarh Club Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Showroom Manager, Mangalam Hyundai, Near Fruit Market, Devpuri, Dhamtari Road, Lalpur, Raipur District Raipur Chhhattisgarh

... Respondents

2

WPC No.840 of 2022

(Cause title taken from the Case Information System)

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay and Shri Arvind Panda, Advocates

¶23

For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent no. 4 : Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate with Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate

Order on Board

By

Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

20.02.2025

By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs :

¶29

(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ Set aside the impugned Report dated 21.07.2021 made by Respondent No.1 for it being founded on presumptions, not having any scientific or technological reasoning behind it, being passed in violation of principles of natural justice as well as Order dated Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5606 of 2019.

¶30

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 18.01.2021 passed by Respondent No.3 in EA No. 2019/34 and dated 02.11.2021 passed by Learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Appeal No. FA 2021/82 upholding the order of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Raipur in EA No. 2019/34 on the ground that the orders are perverse in nature,prejudicial to the Petitioner and incorrect in the eye of law and contrary to Order dated Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5606 of 2019.

¶31

(iii) Direct Respondent no. 1 to carry out a fresh inspection in furtherance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5606 of 2019 arising out of SLP No. (C) No. 10975/2019 in presence of the Petitioner; and/or

¶32

3

¶33

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶34

(iv) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.

¶35

(v) That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioners.

¶36

(a) The indisputable facts of the case are that the respondent No.4 purchased the vehicle of the make Neo Elantra CRDI S1.6 BSIV bearing Chasis Number MALDH41ULDMO13729A¹ from the petitioner for a sum of Rs.15,84,104/- on 29.03.2013. On account of certain faults in the steering wheel, the vehicle kept leaning onto the left side and kept on auto locking, the respondent No.4 lodged a complaint bearing CC No. 468/2015 before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The said Forum by order dated 09.07.2018 allowed the complaint of the respondent No.4 and directed the petitioner to reimburse the full price of the vehicle to the respondent No. 4 or replace the vehicle with the same model.

¶37

(b) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the State Commission by filing FA No. 864/2018, which was dismissed on 12.10.2018. Thereafter, the review petition No.212/2019, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the National Commission on 09.04.2019. Thereagainst the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5606/2019. The said appeal was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 16.07.2019

¶38

1 (henceforth ‘the vehicle’)

¶39

4

¶40

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶41

(c) In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the vehicle was repaired by the petitioner and the same was delivered to respondent No.4 on 05.09.2019. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 and his family using the vehicle and covered 102311 kms till 21.07.2020. However, all of a sudden without any intimation to the petitioner the respondent No.4 sent the vehicle for inspection with the respondent No.1, who carried out the inspection of the vehicle and submitted the report on 21.07.2020.

¶42

(d) On the basis of the said report of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.4 approached the District Commission, who by order dated 18.01.2021 passed in EA No.2019/34 directed the petitioner to comply with the order dated 09.07.2018 which has been passed by it in case no. 468/2015 by directing the petitioner to refund the full amount of the vehicle and replace the vehicle with the same model. Against the said order dated 18.1.2021 the petitioner approached the State Commission who by order dated 2.11.2021 passed in FA No.2021/82 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by the District Forum. Thus, this petition.

¶43

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that before placing the vehicle by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.1 no intimation was given to the petitioner and even the respondent No.1 also has not intimated the petitioner and as such the act of the respondent Nos.1 & 4 is in violation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as principles of natural justice. He would further

¶44

5

¶45

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶46

submit that the inspection was conducted in an insouciant manner. In fact the testing/ inspection of the vehicle is required to be conducted in a well equipped laboratory by deploying the proper technical personnel. While submitting the report the respondent respondent No.1 has not followed the proper parameters. Learned counsel would also submit that, in fact, there is no defect relating to steering in the vehicle and the respondent No.4 is trying to take undue advantage. Learned counsel would next submit that had it been the respondent No.1 and 4 informed the petitioner at the time of inspection, the petitioner may deploy the properly trained technicians with proper laboratory facilities to inspect the vehicle.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, per contra , would submit that this Court has no jurisdiction to ascertain the legality and validity of the inspection report dated 21.07.2020 submitted by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 is an independent body and has nothing to do with the dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent No.4. He would further submit that since the problem exist in the vehicle, the respondent No.4 has placed the vehicle before the respondent No.1 as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that after the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on dated 16.07.2019, the vehicle was repaired by the petitioner and handed over to the respondent No.4 on 05.09.2019 and thereafter within a period of one year the complaint recurred and, as such, the respondent No.4 has rightly placed the vehicle before the respondent No.1 who after thorough

¶48

6

¶49

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶50

inspection submitted the report stating that the steering of the car seems to be slightly hard and sometimes slightly goes to the left side when steering is released during driving. On the basis of the report of the respondent No.1, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner approached the Consumer Forum for execution of the order dated 09.07.2018, wherein the forum passed an order to replace the vehicle or refund the full price of the said vehicle, who after considering all the aspects of the matter in its true perspective, passed the order impugned.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/NIT would submit that the respondent No.1 has nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4. It has inspected the vehicle as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that the authorities of the respondent No.1 have taken a test drive of the car and during the course of such test drive it was noticed that the steering felt to be slightly hard and there was something pulling the vehicle to left side.

¶52

I have heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties and perused the documents as also the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the report submitted by the respondent No. 1/NIT.

¶53

For the sake of convenience, it would be apt to quote the order dated 167-2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5606 of 2019 as also the relevant part of the inspection report dated 21-72020, in respect of the vehicle, submitted by the respondent No.1/NIT :

¶54

Order dated 16-7-2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :

¶55

7

¶56

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶57

Leave granted.

¶58

During the course of the hearing of the appeal and with the efforts of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, a settlement has been arrived at, in the following terms:

¶59

(i) The appellant shall carry out all necessary repairs so as to ensure that the vehicle of the make Neo Elantra CRDI S1.6 BSIV bearing Chasis number MALDH41ULDMO13729A is placed in a road worthy condition. The grievance of the respondent is with respect to the steering wheel and that the vehicle tends to pull to the left side when it is being driven;

¶60

(ii) For the above purpose, the respondent shall bring the vehicle to the authorised service centre of the appellant at Raipur;

¶61

(iii) Upon the vehicle being brought to the authorised service centre, the appellant shall repair the vehicle in the terms as set out in clause (i) above, within a period of three weeks;

¶62

(iv) In the event that any issue arises with regard to the recurrence of the complaint within a period of one year from the date on which the repair of the vehicle is completed, the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the National Institute of Technology, Raipur and to abide by such report as may be furnished after the inspection of the vehicle; and

¶63

(v) In the event that the National Institute of Technology, Raipur comes to the conclusion that the defect in the vehicle has continued to exist, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall stand revived for compliance.

¶64

The impugned order passed by the National Disputes Redressal Commission shall stand set aside and be substituted by the above directions, by consent.

¶65

4 The appeal is disposed of in the terms of the settlement as set out above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶66

8

¶67

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶68

Relevant part of inspection report of the NIT :

¶69

Car has run for 102150 kms (One Lakh two thousands one hundred and fifty kilometers) when received.

¶70

The steering of car seems to be slightly hard.

¶71

The car sometimes slightly goes to the left side when steering is released during driving.

¶72

No Power steering failure or steering lock was observed in the car during the drive of 161 kilometers (from Milometer Reading 102150 to 102311) by committee members.

¶73

The Car has run over 1,00,000 Kms (One Lakh Kilometers) after its manufacture/date of purchase and have aged by more than 7 years. Moreover, Institute do not have technical inspection facility to diagnose the problem. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain the exact cause of the problems observed in Point No (2) and (3) above.

¶74

It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.4 has purchased the vehicle from the petitioner in the month of March 2013, however, owing to some technical issues/faults in the vehicle the respondent No.4 approached the District Consumer Forum, who by order dated 09/07/2018 allowed the complaint of the respondent No.4 and directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount or replace the vehicle with the same model. Thereafter, the matter travelled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein by order dated 16/07/2019, the Hon’ble Supreme court disposed of the matter as mentioned in Para 7 of this order. At para 2(iv) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the event any issue arises with regard to the recurrence of the complaint within a period of one year from the date on which the repair of the vehicle is completed the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the National Institute of Technology, Raipur and to abide

¶75

9

¶76

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶77

by such report as may be furnished after the inspection of the vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed at para 2(v) that in the event that the National Institute of Technology Raipur comes to the conclusion that the defect in the vehicle has continued to exist, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall stand revived for compliance.

¶78

Thereafter, in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the vehicle was repaired by the petitioner and handed over the same to the Respondent No.4 on 05/09/2019. thereafter the respondent No.4 used the vehicle till 21/07/2020 without raising any complaint, however all of a sudden that too without any intimation to the petitioner the respondent No.4 sent the vehicle to the respondent No.1/NIT on 30/6/2020 for inspection. On the basis of which the respondent No.1 inspected the vehicle and submitted the report on dated 21/07/2020 wherein it has been observed that the steering of car seems to be slightly hard and the car sometimes slightly goes to the left side when steering is released during driving. It further found that no power steering failure or steering lock was observed during the drive of 161 kms. The NIT has also mentioned in its report that it has no technical inspection facility to diagnose the problem and hence it is not possible to ascertain the exact cause of the problems as observed in its report at point No.2 & 3.

¶79

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 16/07/2019 at para 2 (iv) observed that the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the National Institute of Technology, Raipur. The term ‘dispute’ means a controversy

¶80

10

¶81

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶82

having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of a claim by one party and its denial by the other. Thus, before sending the vehicle to the respondent No.1/ NIT for inspection, the respondent No.4 ought to have firstly approached the petitioner and intimate about the faults pointed out by him in the vehicle, however, without intimating the petitioner, the respondent No.4 straightaway sent the vehicle to the NIT. Thus, from the act of the respondent No.4 it is quite vivid that he has not followed the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its true perspective. Even the respondent No.1/NIT has not summoned the petitioner by informing the fact regarding inspection of the vehicle. Further the NIT in its report categorically mentioned that there is no defect of power steering failure or steering lock and they have no sufficient infrastructure for technical inspection to diagnose the defect in the vehicle. Thus, from the said facts, the inference can be drawn that the inspection report has been prepared by the NIT behind the back of the petitioner.

¶83

As discussed above, it is quite clear that before referring the dispute by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.1 and even at the time of inspection of the vehicle, the petitioner has not been summoned or informed. In fact, in the report dated 21.7.2020 the NIT categorically mentioned that no proper infrastructure was available with it at the time of inspection of the vehicle.

¶84

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, at this juncture, the report of the NIT dated 21.7.2020 cannot be accepted, as the vehicle has not been inspected in proper laboratory and they simply find the

¶85

11

¶86

WPC No.840 of 2022

¶87

fault only on the basis of driving 161 kms. In addition to that the report has been prepared behind the back of the petitioner that too without following the basic principles of natural justice. Even as on date no direction can be issued for inspection of the vehicle again, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 16.7.2019 at para 2(iv) observed that “in the event that any issue arises with regard to the recurrence of the complaint within a period of one year from the date on which the repair of the vehicle is completed, the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the National Institute of Technology, Raipur“. Thereafter, more than five years period lapsed. Even otherwise, the vehicle was purchased in the month of March, 2013 and as on date about 12 years period lapsed and hence it is not at all feasible to inspect the vehicle today.

¶88

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned report dated 21/07/2020 submitted by the NIT as also the impugned order dated 18/1/2021 passed by the District Forum in EA No.2019/34 and the order dated 2/11/2021 passed by the State Commission in FA No.2021/82 are quashed.

¶89

There shall be no order as to cost(s).

¶90

Sd/-

¶91

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶92

Gowri

¶93

K GOWRI SANKARA	Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date:
RAO	2025.02.21 17:46:10 +0530

Hyundai Motor India Limited v. National Institute of Technology Raipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyundai Motor India Limited v. National Institute of Technology Raipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasharth Sona Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Polybond Rock Fibre Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl)

Suresh Soni Vs Narayan Prasad Soni

Ajay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Kumar Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh