Delhi Consumer Commission says Hyundai not responsible for dealer omissions

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld an order of the district forum, holding the manufacturer and the customer relations office in custody. Hyundai Engines India is not responsible for any irregularities or omissions on the part of an authorized dealer. The authorized dealer did not deliver a car after receiving it. reservation amount.

The bench, comprising chairperson Justice Sangita Lal Dhingra and member JP Agarwal, was hearing an appeal against an order of the Delhi district forum which in January 2015 held that Hyundai Motors India’s head office and its customer relations office were not liable for Suhrit Hyundai’s breach of undertaking in Mayapuri.

However, the forum had directed the authorised dealer to refund the reservation amount of Rs 3.32 lakh and pay a litigation cost of Rs 10,000, the commission said.

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission further noted that the consumer filed an appeal against the forum’s order, alleging that his directions could not be executed as the dealer had closed the showroom and there was no current address.

The consumer appealed that Hyundai Motors India Limited, Chennai, and its customer relations office at Mathura Road, Delhi, be held liable as a result.


The commission took note of the manufacturer’s allegations that its liability was limited to warranty obligations and that it could be held liable for any problems with retail sales of a vehicle. In an order passed earlier this month, the commission said no agreement had been recorded between the manufacturer and the dealer to establish the manufacturer’s liability. “We note that Rs 3.32 lakh paid by the appellant (consumer) to respondent No. 1 (authorised showroom) was towards the booking amount and was not transferred to respondent No. 2 (head office) or respondent No. 3 (customer relations office). As a result, there is no privity of contract and they cannot be held liable,” it said.

The commission dismissed the appeal, saying the manufacturer and its Delhi office could not be held liable for “any wrongdoing or omission” on the part of the distributor.

Source link

Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.

Leave a Comment