District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Bangalore: While considering the instant complaint filed against Hyundai Motors seeking replacement of the complainant’s damaged vehicle or repair the vehicle to its original condition at no cost to the complainant by extending the benefits under the extended warranty scheme; the Bench of K. Anita Shivakumar (President) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) found that the complaint was filed with malafide intent pointing out that. the complainant and his counsel were aware that the damaged car in question, was no longer in complainant’s custody for it to be replaced or repaired, because the complainant had already sold the car to a third party.
Background:
The complainant bought a Hyundai car by paying sale consideration of Rs 5,22,595 which was regularly serviced by complainant at authorized service centre. The complainant further purchased an extended warranty for the vehicle from Hyundai by paying Rs 14,866 which ensures the said warranty will apply for all major mechanical defects and repairs would be covered.
On 25-10-2024, while the complainant was driving the said vehicle, he experienced the unexpected break failure and noticed that flames erupting from the bonnet of the car. He immediately contacted roadside assistance service of Hyundai, which towed the damaged vehicle to for further inspection and repair. The authorised service centre assessed the damage and estimated the repair cost of Rs 6.7 lakhs.
DCDRC’s findings on the damaged Hyundai car and the consumer’s conduct:
While perusing the matter and the contentions of the complainant’s counsel, the DCDRC noted that prima facie the damaged Hyundai car had already availed the benefit of insurance for Rs 3,00,000 from Zurich Kotak insurance company by claiming the fire accident caused on 25-10-2024. Furthermore, the complainant had produced memo with documents which contained an agreement for sale of damaged vehicle entered on 06-01-2025. The car in question has already been sold to one Trigent Corporate who approached the complainant and offered to purchase the damaged Hyundai car for Rs 88,000.
The DCDRC pointed out that once movable or immovable property is sold out, one who purchases the property will have a right on a property not the seller. The DCDRC thus strictly pointed out that when the complainant has already got an amount of Rs 3,00,000 from insurance and he also entered into an agreement to the sell the car with Trigent Corporate and received Rs.88,000; therefore, the complainant has no right over the car in question. As per the document of agreement and the submission, complainant’s rights had ceased immediately after the damaged Hyundai car was sold out.
The DCDRC further noted that the complainant had suppressed a lot of information in his complaint and emphasised that complainant must understand the legal implications with regard to the car in question when it is not in his custody.
The DCDRC also came down heavily onto the complainant’s counsel stating that the complainant may have been a lay person who approached an advocate for the legal remedy for the payment he paid for the extended warranty. An advocate could have advised him that the complainant ceased his rights on car in question, immediately after its sale and drafted the complaint by suppressing the material facts like insurance payment, sale agreement of damaged vehicle etc., for claiming illegal claims. “It clearly exhibits complainant did not appear with the clean hands and made claim against the OPs for unjust enrichment”.
The complainant and his counsel, while filing the complaint against Hyundai, were aware that the damaged car was not in the complainant’s custody, thereby revealing malafide intent and wasting precious judicial time.
Costs imposed on Consumer for seeking to repair/replace the damaged Hyundai car despite selling it:
With the afore-stated assessment of the complaint, the consumer’s conduct vis-a-vis selling the car and then filing a consumer complaint to seek repair/ replacement and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for alleged mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss; the DCDRC found it fit to dismiss the complaint and imposing costs of Rs.40,000 which would be remitted to the Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from the date of order. Failing which, interest at the rate of 10% per annum will be charged till realization.
[Mohan Hegde v. Hyundai Motors India Limited, COMPLAINT No.125/2025, decided on 27-5-2025]
Order by K. Anita Shivakumar, President
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Adv. Nishanth. S. K for complainant