Hyundai Car Catches Fire While Driving, Hassan District Commission Holds Hyundai India, Its Seller And Showroom Liable

The Hassan District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Chanchala CM (President), HV Mahadev (Member) and Anupama R (Member) held Hyundai India and its authorised dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for selling a car with manufacturing defect which subsequently led to car catching fire while the complainant was travelling. The bench ordered the manufacturer and dealer to provide the complainant with a new car and Rs 1.4 Lacs to the complainant as compensation. Brief Facts: The complainant, an individual aged about 75, purchased a brand-new Hyundai Santro M.T Sportz car from Advathi Motors Pvt. Ltd. (“Seller”) on 11th June 2019 for a total cash payment of Rs. 6,25,663. The complainant used the car with care, and it was serviced twice. The first service was conducted by the seller on 4th September 2019, and the second service by Advathi Hyundai (“Showroom”) on 26th June 2020. The car was reported to be in good condition after these services. However, on 17 October 2020, the complainant was travelling in the car when it suddenly caught fire while en route from Banavara to Arasikere. The complainant and his driver had to exit the vehicle, and the fire was eventually extinguished with the help of the public. This incident was reported to the seller and the showroom. The complainant also filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Banavara police station. The seller and the showroom owner assured the complainant they would make alternate arrangements for him. The complainant, trusting these assurances, waited for some time but did not receive an alternate vehicle, despite the car being under warranty. The complainant, dissatisfied with the attitude of the seller and the showroom authorities, issued a legal notice to them. However, they did not respond to this notice, leading to the filing of the consumer complaint in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hassan (“District Commission”). The complainant contended that the car had a manufacturing defect, which led to the fire incident. He argued that the vehicle caught fire while in operation on the road, indicating a manufacturing defect, and he cited a survey report to support this claim. The complainant further contended that the seller and the showroom took possession of the car and assured him they would provide an alternative vehicle, which they did not fulfil. He claimed to have suffered physical, and mental stress, and financial burden due to the incident. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission applied the legal principle “Res ipsa loquitur,” which means “the thing speaks for itself.” In the case of a fire accident, this principle suggests that it was likely due to a manufacturing defect. The seller and the showroom owner failed to prove there was no manufacturing defect. Thus, the District Commission found a deficiency of service on their part. Crucially, the District Commission noted that the seller and the showroom assured the complainant that they would provide an alternative vehicle in the wake of the incident, as the car was still within its warranty period and appeared to suffer from a defect. However, no replacement vehicle was given by them. Further, the District Commission noted that Hyundai India did not present any evidence to prove the absence of a manufacturing defect. Therefore, it ordered the seller, the showroom and Hyundai Motor India Ltd. jointly and severally to provide the complainant with a new car of the same brand or an equivalent value. In addition to the vehicle replacement, it directed the parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- for the costs incurred by the complainant. The showroom was particularly held accountable for the unauthorized use of the complainant’s vehicle. Therefore, the District Commission directed it to pay the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the unauthorized use and deficiency of service. This compensation addressed the fact that the vehicle, while under the warranty period, was used without the owner’s consent, and the complainant was deprived of its use. Case: Raju BH vs Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Case No.: CC/68/2021 Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KMR Advocate for the Respondent: Sri STS Click Here ToRead/Download The Order

Hyundai Car Catches Fire While Driving, Hassan District Commission Holds Hyundai India, Its Seller And Showroom Liable

Smita Singh

Tags