Hyundai Motor India — Regarding clutch disc changing under warranty period

Address:

688524

Roy c. r., son of raghavan, janani nivas, kalavamkodam p. o., shertallai, alappuzha district – 668 8524.-complainant.
The complainant is the registered owner of i10 grand asta hyundai petrol car manufactured by m/s hyundai motor india ltd. bearing reg. no. kl32-j-5160. the said car was purchased by him from m/s popular hyundai, vyttila, ernakulam, by paying to the company around rs. 6.85 lakhs inclusive of price, insurance charges – comprehensive and bumper to bumper of rs.21, 382/- apart from registration charges. the vehicle was taken delivery on 11/3/2016.
The complainant felt that the clutch was tight while handling but thought that it was on account of being new. the vehicle was entrusted with m/s popular hyundai, vyttila, ernakulam for the first free service on 15/4/2016 after having driven 1552 kms as clearly instructed in the service book handed over to the complainant. he had intimated of the clutch being tight. after alleged inspection and checking and washing, the car was returned to the complainant in the evening the same day. he was further told that the clutch had been loosened.
A few days thereafter, the complainant, while driving the vehicle felt that the clutch was tight again which was found to be quite unusual being a petrol car, and consequently smooth driving was found to be impossible. the complainant felt that the problem may be serious requiring immediate attention at the authorised workshop. accordingly he took the vehicle sometime during the second week of may, 2016 to the vyttila showroom of the dealer from whom the same was purchased. he had met sri rahul krishna, customer relations manager, and had narrated the problem. he had driven the vehicle and found that the clutch was unusually tight as complained by the complainant and advised that the clutch disc required to be change, but denied any manufacturer warranty, clearly intimating that he had to meet the bill of approximately rs.5000.
Needless to say, the insistence that complainant himself should pay the expenses for changing the disc came as a shock. he had further stated that he was helpless since the company would not meet or reimburse the expenses incurred while changing the clutch disc.
The complainant returned from the dealers shop and submitted an email complaint to them. he had received on 22/6/2016, a letter dated 18/6/2016 under the name and signature of sri rahul krishna, customer relations manager expressing concern to the complaint, regretting the inconvenience caused, stating that they were awaiting an opportunity to serve him in this respect. he was accordingly advised to bring the vehicle to the workshop as per his convenience, with prior intimation by phone.
Accordingly, the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the dealer at vyttila, ernakulam with prior intimation, and the complainant met sri rahul krishna, who after inspection, reiterated that there was some serious problem with the clutch disc being tight, but further stated that the expenses thereon were liable to be met by the complainant.
The complainant was absolutely sure that the problem was one relating to manufacturing and assemblying, and the expenses in changing the disc were liable to be met by the dealer in terms of the warranty as well as insurance. however, sri rahul krishna was adamant that expenses had to be footed by him.
The complainant intrigued by the liability to meet the expenses despite being some complaint not at attributable to him but to manufacturing and assembling, did not accede to the demand.
The complainant had taken the vehicle to the showroom of dealer by name m g f, punnapra, alappuzha, where the vehicle was subjected to intensive inspection and checks. some mechanical work was effected and the vehicle was returned to the complainant after taking service charges.
However, after a few days, the same problem of clutch tightness was felt while driving. meanwhile the vehicle had already been driven for 10, 000 km and was taken to the showroom of m g f, punnapra on 15/10/2016 for the second of free services. the complainant was told that they would inform the company and try to persuade waiving of charges for changing of clutch disc. he was further told that he would be intimated on receipt of the clutch disc. the vehicle was handed over back to the complainant on 20/10/16. however, on reaching his house and alighting from the car, he noticed that a small white patch had occurred in the centre of the drivers seat, presumably slightly burnt, due to some mishap which had occurred in the workshop. the petitioner had immediately on the same day contacted the service manager sri shyam and intimated him of the white patch. he had assured that the same which had occurred when the vehicle was in the workshop, would be replaced.
The said dealer had intimated the complainant on 25/11/2016 of the arrival of the clutch disc from the company and had directed him to produce the vehicle. accordingly the vehicle was taken to the workshop of m g f, punnapra, as directed by the service manager, sri shyam.
The vehicle was delivered back to the complainant on 5/12/2016, after obtaining from him rs.4, 700/-by way of charges, intimating that the company did not accept free repair. finding no other alternative, the complainant paid the said amount and took delivery of the vehicle. even the white patch assured to be replaced by putting a new seat cover had not been done. the petitioner was told that the same would be replaced on receipt of the replacing cover. the complainant was further told that he would interact with the company to wave the charges of new seat covers.
The complainant had contacted the service manager, sri shyam on a few occasions. on 7/12/2016, sri shyam intimated him that the company would only change one seat cover even if its colour differs from the original affixed on the other seats.
The complainant is refraining from stating anything further on the legality or otherwise of the refusal to reimburse the charges levied for changing the clutch disc in this complaint, and is confining the same to the cause being some manufacturing or assembling defect, refusal to reimburse being illegal despite warranty of the vehicle and insurance cover. he would further like to point out that the refusal constitute deficiency in service falling under the consumer protection act and the provisions therein being applicable. the defect in the clutch assembly had to be remedied free of charge in terms of the warranty wherein the company had certified that the vehicle was bereft of any manufacturing or assembling defect. he would even go to the extent of saying that the companies guilty o[censored]nfair trade practice after having assured that the vehicle was of a particular standard quality and the like. it may be noted that the complainant had been personally driving 3 other vehicles earlier at different points of time and he had not face any such problem discerning that the fault lies at the manufacturing/assembling end. he further asserts that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the company as well as its authorised dealer.
In such circumstances, the complainant requests that the charges of rs.4700/-may kindly be reimbursed to him, illegality taken from him for replacing the clutch disc, for a problem which had emanated from manufacturing or assembling at the company”s end. appropriate instructions may also be given to change all the seat covers free of cost for having burnt or cause a white patch in the middle of the cover of the drivers seat which had happened at the workshop sometime between 15/10/16 and 20/10/16.