BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSAL FORUM, UNA, HP

CASE NO.43/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:-
ADITYA BHARADWAJ
……COMPLAINANT
VERSUS

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. & ORS.

……OPPOSITE PARTIES

INDEX
S.N PARTICULARS PAGE NO
O
1. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1

THROUGH

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

DATE:
PLACE:
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
FORUM, UNA, HP

CASE NO.43/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:-
ADITYA BHARADWAJ
……COMPLAINANT
VERSUS

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. & ORS.

……OPPOSITE PARTIES

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Complainant has alleged that due to negligence by Opposite Party No.
1, the accidental vehicle of the complainant got further damage by the
second accident whilst the vehicle was in the charge of OP No. 2, who
failed and neglected to park the damaged vehicle with proper care.
Whereas, as per the inputs from the dealership, the damaged vehicle was
never parked by Opposite Party No. 1, the same was towed to its workshop
by the RSA team, and placed near the road. The Complainant has further
alleged OP No. 3 for not considering the claim for further damages made to
the vehicle and hence essentially the dispute is between the Complainant
and OP No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company which is denying the insurance claim
of the Complainant. It is submitted that bare perusal of allegation made in
Complaint will show that there is no allegation against the answering
opposite party and hence there is no cause of action for the present
Complaint qua answering opposite party.

2. The Complainant has impleaded Opposite Party No 2 as a party to this

Complaint merely on the misconceived ground that the dealers are
representatives of Opposite Party No. 2 and that it is liable for the
alleged acts and omissions of the dealer.

SUBMISSIONS:
 THE LIABILITY OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 IS LIMITED

3. It is submitted that the liability of Opposite Party No.2 being the

manufacturer of the Hyundai Cars is limited and extends to its warranty
obligations in relation to the manufacturing defects of the car/ vehicle
during the existence of the warranty period alone.

4. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the title of the Hyundai vehicle

passes on to the concerned dealer the moment it is put on a common carrier.
The foregoing has been laid in precedents by Hon'ble National Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission in M/s Hero Honda Ltd. Vs K.B
Murleedharan & Anr reported in 1986-94(NS)955 Indian Airlines
Corporation vs. Patel Ramubhal Shanker Lal & Anr. reported in 1986-
94(NS)437 and Vijay Traders Vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. as rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, reported in 1995(6)SCC566.

 RELATIONSHIP OF MANUFACTURER (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.

2) & DEALER (OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1) IS OF PRINCIPAL-TO-
PRINCIPAL AND HENCE OP 1 CAN NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR
ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF DEALER

5. It is submitted that aspects of retail sale of vehicle is strictly inter se

complainant and concerned selling dealer. It is submitted that the
relationship of the answering Opposite Party No. 2 (manufacturer)
with Dealer (OP No. 1) is one of the principal-to-principal basis and
not as a principal-to-agent, hence the answering Opposite Party No. 2,
can not be held liable for acts & omissions of dealer during retailing of
the vehicle as held by National Commission in Maruti Udyog Limited
Vs. Nagender Prasad Sinha & Anr. (Revision petition No 674/2004
and 676 or 677 of 2004 decided on 04.05.2009) and by Hon'ble
Supreme court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer protection
council, Kerala & Anr., decided on 07.12.1993.

6. That the answering OP operates with all its dealers on a principal-to-

principal basis and errors/omission, if any, at the time of re-selling to
 consumer such as Complainant or servicing of the car, the same is the
sole responsibility of the concerned dealer

 COMPLAINANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY CAUSE

OF ACTION AND DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE AGAINST THE
OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 AND HENCE THE NAME OF OP 2
DESERVES TO BE DELETED

7. It is further submitted there was no privity of contract between the

Complainant and the dealer and that no money towards sale consideration
of car was paid to Opposite Party No. 2 and hence OP No. 2 cannot be held
liable for refunding this same. The car delivered to complainant was
perfectly fine and complainant has not alleged any defect in performance of
car.

8. It is further submitted that the liability of Opposite Party No. 2 is limited to

performance of car purchased by the Complainant and extends to its
warranty obligations alone. Since, complainant has not raised any
allegations regarding the performance of the car, no deficiency can be
attributed to Opposite Party No. 2. Further, it is submitted that the
Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Opposite Party No. 2 had
promised or assured services, which was not fulfilled by it or Opposite
Party No. 2 was deficient in providing any services or for that matter
indulged in any unfair trade practices under the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.

9. It is submitted that all after sales services to consumer such as the

complainant are strictly between the OP No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company and
the Complainant and the Answering Opposite Party No. 2 (manufacturer of
car) has no role or vicarious liability in respect of the same.

10. It is further submitted that, the request for Compensation is to be governed

by the principle in law as laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the matter of Surendra
Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another,
IV(2010)CPJ199(NC) that the compensation should be commensurate with
 loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The Consumer Fora's are not
meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by
awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation.

11. In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that since
the Complainant has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Forum,
the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

THROUGH

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2

DATE:

PLACE: