BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.91 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.679 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD
Between:
Smt G.Padmavathi W/o G.Ranga Rao
aged about 70 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o 32/3RT, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad-038
1. M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director
P.O.Hind Motor Dist.Hooghly-712233
West Bengal
2. M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager(Sales)
H.No.6-1-339/13B, Near Sai Baba
Temple, Padma Rao Nagar,
Secunderabad-025
3. M/s Venkateswara Motors Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Proprietor, H.No.3-5-170/A/12
Narayanaguda, Hyderabad-029
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. `5,78,000/- with interest and a sum of`1,00,000/- towards compensation for suffering mental tension and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
2. `5,78,000/-`5,91,503/- to the respondents. The appellant said to have complained of car posing problems relating to engine, AC, power steering and gears. The third respondent stated to have collected an amount of`1328/- for first service on 25.02.2008 and`1406/- on 17.12.2008 during third servicing and did not rectify the problem. The appellant said to have approached M/s Vasishta Motors which said to have collected a sum of`759/- and failed to rectify the problems of the vehicle. Wheel alignment was stated to have been not done properly and the tyres were worn out.
3. `276/- from the appellant on 13.07.2009, 3.02.2010 and 23.02.2010 which did not rectify the problems. The appellant got issued notice dated 20.05.2010 through her advocate to the second respondent which failed to give reply to the notice.
4. rd
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. `5,91,503/-
12.
13.
14.
15.
1. While driving the vehicle, the engine is not generating sufficient power, and unable to pull in a proper way.
2.
3.
4.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. This Commission in “Sri Gopal Auto Sotes Ltd and another vs Sri Neeripelli Veeranna and another” in F.A.No. 313 of 2011 decided on 15.10.2012 and ‘The Managing Director, Hero Honda Motors and another vs Sri B.Srikanth” in F.A.No. 355of 2009 decided on 13.10.2009 dealt with the cases involving similar facts and circumstances.
21.
“Even in the case of manufacturing defect of a vehicle, the vehicle in toto cannot be ordered to be replaced in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs Susheel Kumar Gabtora reported in AIR 2006 SCC 1586 wherein the Supreme Court opined that warranty condition referred only to the replacement of the defective part and not of the car. In another case, the Hon’ble National Commission held in M/s TELCO Ltd., another Vs. M.Moosa, 1986-94 page 1367 (NS) that the section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act authorizes the forum to have the defects removed even if there are numerous defects which can be rectified and that it will be very hard on the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defects appear which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we do not find the respondent entitled to the replacement of motor cycle or refund of its cost”
22.
“The first appellant during the first servicing of the vehicle replaced parts charging Rs.1079/- and waived the amount as goodwill gesture.
1. If all free services/paid services/oil top-ups are not availed from the authorized Hero Honda workshops.
2. If Hero Honda recommended engine oil SAE-10W 30 SJ Grade (JASO MA) is not used.
3. To normal wear and tear components including but not limited to) brake shows, clutch shoes, bulbs, electrical wiring, filter, spark plug, fasteners, shims, washer, oil seals, gaskets, rubber parts, bush rubber bellows, plastic parts breakage and wheel rim for misalignment bend.
4. If additional wheel(s) is are fitted and/or any other modification carried out/accessories fitted other than the ones recommended by Hero Honda
5. If Super Splendor motorcycle has been sued in any competitive events like races or rallies or for any commercial purposes as taxi etc.
6. To any damage on motorcycle’s painted surface cropping due to industrial pollution or other external factors.
7. For normal phenomenon like noise, vibration, oil seepage etc., which do not affect the performance of the Motorcycle.
8. To any damage caused due to usage of improper oil/grease, non-genuine parts.
9. If any defect crops or repairs needed as a result fo using adulterated fuel.
10. If any maintenance/repairs required due to bad road conditions or misuses of Super Splendor motorcycle.
11. If any defect crops or repairs needed as a result of Super Splendor Motorcycle meeting to some accident.
12. For consumables like oil, grease, gasket etc., to be used during free services and/or warranty repairs..
13. To any part of Super Splendor motorcycle which has been tampered or got repaired at unauthorized outlet.
14. For Super Splendor motorcycle not used in accordance with the guidelines given in the owner’s manual.
16. In terms of “warranty” it is mandatory for the first respondent to avail all the free services as per the recommended schedule.
23. The report of Nageswara Rao would lend support to the case of the appellant insofar as the problems posed by the vehicle and their improper rectification by the respondent and it does not support the claim for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the amount.
24. `15,000/- towards compensation. 25. `15,000/- to the appellant towards compensation together with costs of`3,000/-
కె.ఎం.కె*
