Delhi Commission Clears Hyundai in Case of Dealer's Failure to Deliver Car

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has confirmed a district forum's decision, stating that Hyundai Motors India's manufacturer and customer relations office are not accountable for any misconduct or omission by an authorised dealer. The dealer had failed to deliver a car after receiving the booking amount.

Representative image

The commission, led by President Justice Sangita Lal Dhingra and member JP Agarwal, was reviewing an appeal against the January 2015 order of the Delhi district forum. This order had declared that Hyundai Motors India's head office and customer relations office were not liable for Suhrit Hyundai's breach of commitment in Mayapuri.

Consumer Appeal and Dealer Closure

The forum had instructed the authorised dealer to refund the booking amount of Rs 3.32 lakh and pay Rs 10,000 in litigation costs. However, the consumer filed an appeal against this order, arguing that the directions could not be executed because the dealer had closed its showroom and there was no current address available.

The consumer contended that due to the dealer's closure, Hyundai Motors India Limited in Chennai and its customer relations office on Mathura Road, Delhi, should be held responsible. The commission noted that the manufacturer's liability was limited to warranty obligations and could not extend to issues with vehicle retail sales.

Manufacturer's Liability

In an order passed earlier this month, the commission stated that no manufacturer-dealer agreement was presented 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 for the booking amount and was not transferred to respondent No 2 head office and respondent No 3 customer relation office. As a result, there is no privity of contract and they cannot be held liable," it said.

The commission dismissed the appeal, concluding that Hyundai Motors India and its Delhi office could not be held responsible for any wrongdoing or omission by the dealer. The manufacturer's submissions highlighted that their liability was confined to warranty obligations only.

The commission's decision underscores the importance of clear contractual agreements between manufacturers and dealers regarding liability issues. It also highlights the challenges consumers face when dealers close down without fulfilling their commitments.

The case serves as a reminder for consumers to ensure they have all necessary documentation and understand their rights when making significant purchases like vehicles.