Bangalore District Commission Imposes Costs Of Rs.40,000 For Filing False Complaint Against Hyundai Motors
The District Shopper Disputes Redressal Fee, Bangalore bench comprising Okay. Anita, President and Suma Anil Kumar, Member have imposed prices of Rs. 40,000 on the complainant searching for restore / alternative of his broken automobile freed from price from Hyundai Motors regardless of having offered the automobile to a 3rd occasion. The bench noticed that the grievance was filed in unhealthy religion with suppression of fabric info.
Temporary info:
The complainant bought a Hyundai automobile from KUN Hyundai, Chennai on 20.05.2019 by paying a sale consideration of Rs. 5,22,595/-. On 11.04.2024, the complainant bought an prolonged guarantee for his automobile from Hyundai Motors, Tamil Nadu (‘Hyundai’) by paying an quantity of Rs. 14,866/- which ensured that the guarantee will apply for all mechanical defects and repairs. On 25.10.2024, the complainant skilled an sudden brake failure and the car additionally caught fireplace. The car was then taken for restore to Advaith Motors, Bengaluru, which assessed the price of restore as Rs. 6.7 lakhs.
Additional, an examination of the car was performed by an insurance coverage company, M/s Zurich Kotak which concluded that the incident occurred as a result of mechanical failure as the car had inherent defects and is roofed by the guarantee. A number of communications and follow-ups have been despatched by the complainant to Hyundai highlighting deficiency in service and guarantee obligations. On not receiving any passable response, the complainant approached the district fee, Bengaluru praying for acceptable compensation.
Observations of the fee:
The bench noticed that the complainant had already availed the good thing about insurance coverage of Rs. 3,00,000 in respect of the car. The bench additionally examined the paperwork on file which included an settlement on the market of the broken car dated 06.01.2025. It was noticed that the complainant had already offered the automobile to a different party- Trigent Company and obtained a sum of Rs. 88,000/-.
It was additional noticed that when the complainant has received an insurance coverage quantity of Rs.3 lakhs and the automobile has been offered by him, he has no rights over it. After going via the contents of the grievance and the arguments raised by the advocate for the complainant, the bench additionally noticed that there was suppression of fabric info like insurance coverage cost, sale settlement of broken car, and so forth by the complainant.
The bench additional noticed that although complainant is a lay individual, his advocate might have suggested him with the very best of his information for submitting a grievance.
It was held that the complainant approached the buyer fee with unclean fingers and made declare in opposition to Hyundai to unjustly enrich himself. It was additional held that the grievance was filed in unhealthy religion regardless of not having possession of the car. Thus, the prayer of the complainant to switch the broken car with new one or restore it freed from price by extending the advantages of the guarantee scheme was denied.
Therefore, a price of Rs. 40,000 was imposed by the bench and the grievance was dismissed.
Case Title: Mohan Hegde vs Hyundai Motors India Restricted
Case Quantity: Criticism No. 125/2025
Date of Choice: 27.05.2025
