Click it and Unblock the Notifications
Man Penalised Rs 40,000 After Suing Hyundai: We Think It Is Not Fair & Here's Why
The Bengaluru Consumer Court has penalised a man Rs 40,000 for filing a complaint against Hyundai regarding a damaged car he had already sold. The man sought compensation or free repair of the vehicle despite having received an insurance payout and selling the car to Trigent Corporate. The court deemed this action as wasting its time.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Bengaluru, led by President (in-charge) Anita Shivakumar and member Suma Anil Kumar, found that the complainant had not disclosed his agreement to sell the car. This agreement was made in January with Trigent Corporate. The court noted that the complainant's lawyer should have informed him that his rights over the car ended with the sale.
Insurance Compensation and Legal Proceedings
The complainant had also received Rs 3 lakh from an insurance company as compensation for the damage. This detail was omitted in his complaint against Hyundai. The DCDRC dismissed the case, stating, "They (complainant and his lawyer) are well aware that the car in question is not in their possession to replace or to repair the vehicle."
The court ordered that the Rs 40,000 cost be paid to the consumer welfare fund within 30 days of the order. If not paid on time, it would accrue interest at 10% per annum until settled. The commission emphasised that filing such complaints with malicious intent wastes valuable court time.
Details of Car Damage and Sale
The complainant purchased his Hyundai car for Rs5.22 lakh and paid Rs14,880 for an extended warranty. In October 2024, he experienced brake failure followed by a fire under the bonnet after stopping the vehicle. Despite turning off the engine and applying the handbrake, the fire spread rapidly.
An investigation by an insurer attributed this incident to mechanical failure, which should have been covered by his extended warranty. However, he later sold the damaged car to Trigent Corporate for Rs88,000 while also securing Rs3 lakh from his insurer.
Consumer Forum's Observations
The consumer forum highlighted that once property is sold, rights transfer to the buyer. It stated, "It's general awareness once movable or immovable property sold out, purchaser who purchases the property will have a right on a property not the seller ...Complainant have no right over the car in question."
Given these circumstances, since he no longer owned the car legally, his complaint against Hyundai and its associates was dismissed on May 27th. The commission reiterated that upon selling any property, all rights cease immediately for sellers.
DriveSpark Thinks
While I respect the court's decision, I find it difficult to fully agree with the outcome, as I empathise with the consumer's ordeal. In my view, compensation should be tied to the incident and the faulty product - not necessarily to the current ownership status of the vehicle. A consumer who suffers such a traumatic experience, including a brake failure followed by a fire, naturally has no practical or financial ability to keep a severely damaged car in their possession. Disposing of the vehicle becomes a necessity, not an escape route.
Moreover, the consumer had already received insurance compensation, which is a separate contractual matter between him and the insurance provider. Hyundai, as the manufacturer, should still be held accountable for selling a product that suffered a mechanical failure with potentially life-threatening consequences. While I agree with the legal standpoint that once a product is sold, rights transfer to the buyer - it raises a compelling question: does this mean Trigent Corporate, the current owner, is now eligible to pursue a claim against Hyundai for a defect that occurred before their purchase?
That being said, I believe the consumer should have received compensation equivalent to the vehicle's full value, along with an additional amount for the trauma and risk he endured. Legal frameworks should ensure that justice considers not only technical ownership but also the timeline and circumstances under which product failures occur.
However, it is important to note that the consumer should have been transparent about the sale of the vehicle and the insurance compensation already received. These disclosures would have provided better clarity to the court and strengthened the credibility of his complaint. That said, since such facts often emerge during legal proceedings, the court could have sought clarification before concluding that there was malicious intent. Imposing a penalty without exploring this context may appear excessive, especially in a case involving a serious mechanical failure.
Moreover, the consumer's lawyer bears significant responsibility in this situation. It is the duty of legal counsel to guide their client and ensure full and honest disclosure of all relevant facts. A layperson typically relies on their lawyer's advice, and any oversight or strategy of concealment could stem from legal misguidance rather than deliberate deceit on the consumer's part. In such cases, penalising the consumer alone may seem disproportionate.
Continue with Google