Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (Urban) delivered a verdict involving Sri Mohan Hegde and Hyundai Motors India Limited along with associated parties. The matter revolved around a dispute over a damaged vehicle covered under an extended warranty and subsequent claims for repair, replacement, and compensation.
The complainant, Sri Mohan Hegde, purchased a Hyundai from KUN Hyundai (OP.2) for Rs.5,22,595/-. The vehicle was maintained with regular servicing at authorized centers. Subsequently, the complainant procured an extended warranty from Hyundai Motors India Limited (OP.1) for Rs.14,866/-, which covered major mechanical defects either until the vehicle reached 1,00,000 kilometers or until a specified period. The vehicle later caught fire due to an alleged mechanical failure. After the incident, the vehicle was towed to Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP.3), where the estimated repair cost was assessed at Rs.6.7 lakhs. An insurance survey conducted by M/S Zurich Kotak determined that the fire was caused by an inherent mechanical defect, thus falling within the scope of the warranty coverage.
The complainant sought directions for either replacement of the vehicle or free repairs under the extended warranty scheme, alongside Rs.5,00,000/- compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and reimbursement of litigation expenses. The complainant contended that despite repeated communications, the respondents failed to discharge their warranty obligations.
The Commission’s examination revealed critical procedural and substantive issues. Notably, the complainant had already received Rs.3,00,000/- from the insurance company for the fire damage and executed an agreement on 6th January 2025 selling the damaged vehicle to Trigent Corporate for Rs.88,000/-. The bench emphasized that “once movable or immovable property sold out, purchaser who purchases the property will have a right on a property not the seller.” This fact, undisclosed in the initial complaint, materially impacted the complainant’s locus standi.
The Division Bench of President (in-charge) Anita Shivakumar and Member Suma Anil Kumar of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) observed, “When the complainant has already got an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from insurance as argued by the counsel of complainant at the time of admission and he also got entered into an agreement with the Trigent Corporate and received Rs.88,000/-, on 06/01/2025 itself, Complainant have no right over the car in question. As per the document of agreement and the submission complainant has ceased his rights, immediately after car sold out.”
The Commission stated, “Complainant have no right over the car in question” post-sale and found that the complaint “filed this complaint with mala fide intention and going to waste the precious time of the court.” It further noted the omission of material facts, such as insurance recovery and vehicle sale, amounted to suppression and “complainant did not appear with the clean hands and made claim against the OPs for unjust enrichment.”
On these grounds, the complaint was dismissed as “not admissible” with a cost of Rs.40,000/- to be remitted to the consumer welfare fund within 30 days, failing which interest at 10% per annum would accrue until payment. The Commission directed the parties to be furnished with the order copy and for all extra pleadings and documents to be returned.
Case Title: Sri. Mohan Hegde Vs. Hyundai Motors India Limited. and Ors.
Case No.: Complaint No.125/2025
Coram: President (in-charge) Anita Shivakumar and Member Suma Anil Kumar
Read Order @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
