Date of Filing       : 27.06.2018

                                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal:  18.07.2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR

PRESENT: THIRU.   J. JUSTIN DAVID., M.A., M.L.                    .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.      K.PRAMEELA. M.Com.,                              …..MEMBER-I

                   THIRU:  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN., B.Sc., B.L.,    ….MEMBER-II

CC.No.21/2018

THIS THURSDAY THE 18^th    DAY OF JULY 2019

 K.S.Suresh Kumar,

S/o.Mr. K.Sathiya Murthy,

Door No.4, Flat No.17, 2^nd Street,

Annai Kamala Nagar,

Mugalivakkam, Porur,

Chennai -600 116.                                                                  …… Complainant.

                                                                   //Vs//

1.The Regional Head of Services,

   Rep. by its Regional Manager,

   No.26/46, Opposite ICICI Bank,

   Ambattur Industrial Estate,

   Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.

2.Olympia Honda,

   Rep. by its Service Manager,

   M/s. Khivraj Vahan Private Limited,

   Plot No.21, Industrial Estate,

   Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.

3.Capital Honda,

    Rep.by its Service Manager,

    M/s.Aadit Auto Company Limited,

    Door No.49, Development Plot Industrial Estate,

    Chennai -600 096.

4.M/s.Maanasarovar Automobile Private Limited,

   Rep. by its Service Manager,

   Shiv Mishri Kripa,

   No.15, Arcot Road,

   Chennai - 600 116.                                                                  ……...Opposite parties

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 04.07.2019 in the presence of M/s.V.Srinivasa Ragavan, Counsel for the complainant and M/s.S.V.Udayakumar, Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party and M/s.Bruno Cruz, Counsel for the 4^th opposite party and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were set ex-party for non appearance and having perused the both side documents and evidences, this Forum delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT.

This complaint has been preferred by the complainant U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to pay full quantum of Rs.17,55,721.84/- towards compensation due to the  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for causing loss, damages, mental agony to the complainant and to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the compensation amount till the date of disposal of the complaint and to pay the cost and miscellaneous charges to the complainant.

2. Brief Averments in the complaint filed by complainant is as follows:-

   The complainant has purchased a HONDA CITY 1.5 SV MT (I-DTEC) TAFFETA WHILE CAR from the 2^nd opposite party at a total cost of Rs.12,17,685.84/- vide invoice No.VSPI14002566DATED 31.03.2015 by availing loan of Rs.5,50,000/-from HDFC Bank Limited.  The above vehicle was registered at Chennai on 23.04.2015 and the registration number of the vehicle is TN-10-AS-8728. The complainant has repaid the loan availed from HDFC Bank at Rs.17,876/- per month as EMI from 05.05.2015 to 05.04.2018.  The interest paid to the HDFC Bank for the principal amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was Rs.93,536/-.  As per the manufacturers standard warranty for Honda City cars is two years or 40,000/- kilo meters and the extended warranty is for plus two years or 80,000/- kilo meters, whichever is earlier.  The complainant has taken the extended warranty for his car on extra payment.  At the time of purchase the car was insured with M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016 and thereafter the vehicle was insured with HDFC ERGO general insurance company limited and the current insurance policy is valid till 30.03.2019 and the above car was periodically serviced at Honda authorized service centre.  The first free service was done on 19.05.2015 at 2^nd opposite party’s service centre and at the time of 1^st service, the mileage was 1868 kilo meters.  The 2^nd free service was done at the 1^st opposite party’s service centre on 13.09.2015 and the mileage was 5772 kilo meters and 3^rd free service was done on 13.04.2016 and the mileage was 10366 kilo meters only. After the free service, paid service was done at M/s.Maansarovar Automobile private limited, Arcot Road, Chennai -600 116, the 4^th opposite party, which is also the authorized service centre for HONDA Cars on 22.06.2016.  The 4^th opposite party without consent of the complainant has replaced the fuel pipe, pump and engine oil at free of cost and no information was given to the complainant regarding change of fuel pump, pipe line and engine oil. Only after verifying with the bill, the complainant came to know that the above fuel pump, pipeline and oil was changed and on enquiry the 4^th opposite party was informed that the replacement of fuel pipe, pump and engine oil was changed as per the instructions of the manufacturer of Honda Cars, since there was problem in the fuel pump of 90,210 Honda Cars manufactured between December 2013 to July 2015.  The complainant came to know that on 11.12.2015 the ECONOMIC TIMES and the FINANCIAL EXPRESS had published an article that Honda recalls 90210 City, Mobilio Units to fix Fuel pipe fault.  In the article, the manufacturer has stated that there was a possibility of the fuel return pipe coming out in some of the cars, resulting in fuel leakage and leading to engine stoppage.  Further it is stated that the owners will contacted individually for replacement. But the complainant was neither informed by the dealer nor by the manufacturer about the same and the complainant periodically were paid services availed at 4^th opposite party’s service centre on 29.12.2016, 06.07.2017 and 12.12.2017.  There were some starting problem in the car after the replacement of the fuel pump and pipeline and the 4^th opposite party’s service engineer stated that the battery was weak and it has to be replaced.  Though the battery is covered under the replacement warranty, the 4^th opposite party charged Rs.6,285/- for new battery and cheated the complainant. On 26.01.2018 the complainant had taken his car from Chennai to Ooty, which is about 600 kilo meters from Chennai and there was some problem in the car near Coimbatore.  The car was taken to Manchestor Honda Showroom, the authorized dealer for Honda Cars and the technician advised that the problem might be due to alternator problem and the issue has to be verified with the electrical technician and the complainant towed the vehicle to M/s.Sundaram Honda, Coimbatore and the service advisor at Sundram Honda, informed that they had diagnosed the vehicle in detail by checking turbo and could not able to identify the problem.  They also observed that the oil level was dipped below, so they refilled the oil again and handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 29.01.2018 and the complainant returned to Chennai. The complainant on his way from Coimbatore to Chennai experienced problem in 2^nd and 3^rd gears and due to this he had dropped his car with the 3^rd opposite party on 31.01.2018 for turbo lag as well as starting trouble.  Though the new battery was fixed on 29.12.2016, the car had started troubles since replacement of fuel pump.  The service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party informed that they need to open the engine as problem might be an engine issue.  The vehicle was run for only 61000 kilo meters and there is no necessity for opening the engine up to 10,00,000/- kilo meters.  Further the vehicle’s age was less than three years and the problem was due to the manufacturer’s defective engine.  The complainant raised the above issue with the 1^st opposite party and his complaint was registered under reference number 1-9816241451.  Further the complainant was orally informed by the 3^rd opposite party that the manufacturer had rejected the complainant claim under extended warranty due to irregular service history.  The complainant has been periodically servicing the vehicle only at authorized Honda Service Centers as per the service schedule.  The opposite parties for the purpose of rejecting the complainant claim under the extended warranty had invented the concept of irregular service history. The 3^rd opposite party has been requested to replace the engine under the extended warranty, but till date it has not done the same. The vehicle is lying at the 3^rd opposite party’s service centre from 31.01.2018 and it is nearly five months and the complainant has to travel to his office by engaging taxis, which is causing hardship, inconvenience and also heavy monetary expenditure on him.  The complainant caused a legal notice dated 24.04.2018 to the opposite parties through speed post with acknowledgement due for refund of the cost of the vehicle with interest paid to the bank within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which legal action would be taken.  Though the above notices were received by all of them, they did not reply to the same and all his efforts to get the replacement of engine failed. Therefore there is no point to await for the opposite parties, the complainant is approaching this forum to claim the cost of car, since they had supplied the car with defective fuel pump, pipe, etc., which resulted in the failure of the engine of the car. Hence this is complaint.

3. The brief contention of written version of the  3^rd opposite party  is  as follows:-

The 3^rd opposite party denies the entire averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The 3^rd opposite party is only a formal party in the entire episode alleged by the complainant and the above said car was entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party on 31.01.2018 for starting problem and less pickup and pursuant to this preliminary inspection it had been deduced that the battery crank and voltage was found normal and there was no leakage in any of the fuel line and turbo charger and compression test was done the variation in the compression had been deduced and then the opposite party had advised to dismantle the engine and to replace the affected parts as per the recommendation of HCIL and that it was not due manufacturing defect and was only due to lack of maintenance of the vehicle. Further more in the reply notice it had been reiterated about the escalation of the parking charges and demurrages payable by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party as the vehicle lying idle without any instruction from the complainant to carry out the repairs.  Hence the complainant was insisted to remit a sum of Rs.34,500/- till 31.05.2018 to be remitted as demurrages charges for the said vehicle even in spite of receiving the reply notice the complainant had for reason best known had not come forward either to take delivery of the said vehicle nor to instruct to carry out the repairs or to pay he parking and demurrages charges as accumulated then.  The complainant has preferred this complaint only to ridicule the whole process of law in spite of he being aware that the 3^rd opposite party had been diligently attending to the complaints of the complainant he had with unclean hands and ulterior motives preferred this complaint to cause mental agony and stress to the opposite parties and had forced the opposite parties to the legal battle. Therefore this forum may be pleased to dismiss this complaint.

4. The brief contention of written version of the  4^th  opposite party  is  as follows:-

The present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable and the complainant has approached this forum by suppressing the material facts. The complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of the ‘Consumer Dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect nor any deficiency in service being established against these opposite parties. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 13 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint.  The vehicle purchased by the complainant requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components viz. air filter, fuel filter, change of oil etc., at recommended intervals a s mentioned in the operator’s service book given at the time of sale, for smooth running and optimum performance.  The complainant has failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operator’s service book, as recommended for smooth and better performance of the vehicle in question. The 4^th opposite party relies on the relevant terms and conditions of warranty of the vehicle, limitations and operator’s service book and craves leave to refer the relevant extracts of the terms and conditions, limitations, operator’s service book. In the present case, it is crystal clear that there has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is true that as per the manufacturers standard warranty for Honda City cars is two years or 40,000/- kilo meters and the extended warranty is for plus two years or 80,000/- kilo meters, whichever is earlier but the 4^th opposite party does not know whether the complainant had taken the extended warranty for his car of extra payment. The complainant for the first time reported about his car with the 4^th opposite party for door rattling noise, replace engine oil, oil filter, air filter, fuel filter and general repair under chargeable basis vide RO.NO.SER-RO-DD235-1617-3982 on 22.06.2016 at 24,096/- kilo meters for periodical service.  Since the disputed vehicle was under period of warranty, as per the instruction of HCIL, the 4^th opposite party after giving information to the complainant changed the fuel pipe, pump and engine oil on free of cost.  The complainant again reported his vehicle for his service after six months from his previous service on 29.12.2016 at 34,939 kilo meters.  The complainant never made any allegations against the 4^th opposite party from the date of his service on 22.06.2016 to till 29.12.2016.  The complainant reported his vehicle for general repair such as to check tyre pressure, some noise at rear side and for wheel alignment and balancing.  The 4^th opposite party also done the service to the full satisfaction of the complainant and hence the complainant brought his vehicle for general repair again after seven months from the 2^nd paid service at 44858 kilo meters.  The complainant again reported his vehicle after five months for service on 12.12.2017 at 57,545/- km and informed the 4^th opposite party not to change engine oil and he was preferred to change the engine oil in some other private service centre.  The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle without any complaint with the 4^th opposite party for the past all three occasions.  The complainant used the car for more than 57,545 km.  The starting problem caused because of weak battery and the complainant has reported his vehicle to the service centre of the opposite party for more than three times but never made any complaint of the job done by the opposite party. The starting problem in the vehicle is not because of replacement of the fuel pump but due to the battery cell weak.  The complainant has not been followed the guidelines given by the manufacturer.  The complainant used to report the vehicle even to the 4^th opposite party on irregular basis only. The complainant ought to have submitted the expert report from an appropriate laboratory as per Section 2(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act in support of alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The complainant has failed to adhere and conform to the instructions of the owner’s service book, the omission of which result such problems in the vehicle.  The opposite party has also informed the complainant to change the engine oil periodically.  However, the complainant has been reluctant to do so and therefore the 4^th opposite party prayed this forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost.

5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 3d opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked and on the side of the 4^th opposite party, the proof affidavit filed but no document filed and also oral argument adduced on both sides. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were set ex-parte for non appearance before this forum.

6.  At this juncture, the point for consideration before this forum is:-

(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint from the opposite parties?

(3) Whether the complainant is entitled for cost and miscellaneous charges from the opposite parties?

(4) To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled?

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:-

The complainant has purchased a HONDA CITY 1.5 SV MT (I-DTEC) TAFFETA WHILE CAR from the 2^nd opposite party at a total cost of Rs.12,17,685.84/- vide invoice No.VSPI14002566DATED 31.03.2015 by availing loan of Rs.5,50,000/-from HDFC Bank Limited and the above vehicle was registered at Chennai on 23.04.2015 and the registration number of the vehicle is TN-10-AS-8728 and the complainant has repaid the loan availed from HDFC Bank at Rs.17,876/- per month as EMI from 05.05.2015 to 05.04.2018. Ex.A1 is the copy of Invoice, Ex.A2 is the copy of registration certificate and Ex.A3 is the HDFC repayment schedule and the above said documents confirmed the same. 

8. The complainant has taken extended warranty for his car by paying charges.  As per the manufacturer, standard warranty of Honda Car is two years or 40,000km and extended warranty is for plus two years or 80,000km, whichever is earlier.  Therefore the complainant’s Honda Car is having the warranty period from the date of purchase 31.03.2015 up to four year that is 30.03.2019.  The complainant has taken General Insurance for his car initially from M/s.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company limited and thereafter his car was insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited and the above insurance policy is valid up to 30.03.2019.  The complainant also filed Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 insurance policies copies to prove the same.

9. The complainant alleged that the complainant’s car was periodically serviced at Honda authorized service centre and the first service was done on 19.05.2015 at the 2^nd opposite party service centre, the 2^nd free service was done on 09.07.2015 at the 2^nd opposite party service centre and 3^rd free service was done on 16.10.2015.  Ex.A6 to Ex.A8 is the copy of invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant about the service done to the complainant’s car. As per Ex.A6 invoice the complainant’s car was serviced at the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre on 19.05.2015 and at the time of first service the mileage was 1868 km.  As per Ex.A7 the complainant’s car was serviced at the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre on 09.07.2015 and at the time of service the mileage was 5772 km. As per Ex.A8 the complainant’s car was serviced at the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre on 16.10.2017 and at the time of service, the mileage was 10,366 km.  The complainant availed free services from the 2^nd opposite party periodically and there is no delay in availing the free services.  Therefore there is no delay on the part of the complainant in availing three free services.

10. The complainant alleged that after free service the complainant handed over the car to the 4^th opposite party for paid service on 22.06.2016 and the 4^th opposite party without consent of the complainant replaced the fuel pipe, pump and engine oil on free of cost and information was not given to the complainant regarding change of fuel pipe, pump and engine oil.  Ex.A9 is the TAX INVOICE issued by the 4^th opposite party to the complainant dated 22.06.2016.  At the time of service on 22.06.2016 the above car run up to 24,096 km.  The 4^th opposite party changed the fuel pipe, pump and engine oil on free of cost and the same mentioned in the Ex.A9. But the 4^th opposite party contended that after getting consent from the complainant only replaced the fuel pipe, pump and engine oil by the 4^th opposite party.  Further the manufacturer of Honda Car recalls 90,210 City, mobilio units to fix fuel pipe fault.  Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 are the news paper reports about recall of 90,210 Honda Car fuel pipe fault manufactured between the years 2014 to 2015.  Therefore the 4^th opposite party might have changed the fuel pipe, pump and engine oil on free of cost only after getting consent or only after information of the complainant.

11. The complainant alleged that there was some starting problem in the complainant’s car after replacement of fuel pipe, pump and engine oil by the 4^th opposite party and the same was informed by the complainant to the 4^th opposite party service engineer but the service engineer stated that the battery weak and he replace the battery and for that the 4^th opposite party charged 6,285/- for new battery.  Further the complainant also periodically availed the paid service from the 4^th opposite party and the 4^th opposite party serviced the complainant’s car on 29.12.2016, 06.07.2017 and 12.12.2017.  Ex.A12 to A14 is the copy of TAX INVOICE issued by the 4^th opposite party to prove the above said paid services. According to the complainant on 26.01.2018 the complainant had taken his vehicle from Chennai to Ooty and on the way there was some problem of his car near Coimbatore and the complainant has taken his car to the Manchester Honda Showroom at Coimbatore and the technician advised that the problem may be due to alternator problem and the issued has to be verified with the electrical technician and thereby the complainant could not proceed with his travel plan.  Thereafter the complainant towed the vehicle M/s.Sundaram Honda and the service adviser at M/s.Sundaram Honda, informed that they had diagnosed the vehicle in detail by checking turbo and could not able to identify the problem and also refilled the oil and handed over the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant on his way from Coimbatore to Chennai experienced problem in 2^nd and 3^rd gears and due to this he had dropped the car with the 3^rd opposite party on 31.01.2018 for turbo lag as well as starting trouble.  The service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party informed that they need to open the engine as problem might be an engine issue and the complainant raised the above issue with the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties but the opposite parties rejected the claim on the ground there are no manufacturing defects and the problem is due to irregular service history.

12. It is admitted by both the parties that there is some problem in the engine and the problem will be rectified only after open the engine.  According to the complainant since the vehicle run only up to 61,000km and the problem in the engine within three years from the date of purchase and further the vehicle is within extended warranty period, the manufacturer is liable to replace the engine.  But the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the problem in the engine is due to irregular service history of the vehicle. On perusal of all the documents filed on the side of the complainant this forum finds that the complainant periodically handed over his vehicle to the 1^st opposite party’s authorized service centre for service and therefore there is irregular service history of the vehicle. Further the vehicle was purchased on 31.03.2015 and the problem in the engine arose in the last month of 2017 and in the first month of 2018 and the above vehicle run only 61,000 km.  There is no necessity for opening the engine up to 1,00,000km and also the complainant has taken extended warranty for plus two years up to 2019 and the problem in the engine within the extended warranty period.  But the opposite parties refused to replace the engine on the reason irregular service history and the above reason stated by the opposite parties 1 to 3 are not unsustainable.

13. The complainant availed regular service to his car from the opposite parties and there is no negligent on the part of the complainant.  On the other hand, the engine of the vehicle created problem within the extended warranty period that is three years from the date of purchase.  According to the complainant the starting problem in the car after replacement of fuel pipe, pump and engine oil by the 4^th opposite party.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party is being the manufacturer and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are being service centre are liable to replace the engine. The complainant handed over his vehicle for service but the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects.  Therefore the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to replace the engine on free of cost. Further the opposite parties 1 to 3 has committed deficiency in service by not serviced the vehicle properly and replace the engine.  Under these circumstances there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.  Because of the attitude of the opposite parties 1 to 3 the complainant sustained mental agony and financial loss and thereby the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-  and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  Thus the point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

The 1^st opposite party is the Regional head of services and 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had handed over his vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party for rectifying the defects in the vehicle, but the 3^rd opposite party has advised to open the engine and to replace the affected parts as per the recommendation of HCIL and that it was not due manufacturing defect and it is only due to lack of maintenance of the vehicle. Further the 3^rd opposite party admitted that there is some problem in the engine and the engine has to be opened to replace the affected parts in the engine. The said problem arise within the warranty period and the 1^st opposite party is liable to provide new engine to the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party in turn replaced the new engine since the vehicle is laying with the 3^rd opposite party.  Under these circumstances the complainant is entitled for replacement of engine is his car. Thus the point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:-

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, 1^stOpposite Party is hereby directed to provide new Engine to the complainant’s car bearing Registration No. TN-10-AS-8728 within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order to the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party in turn replace the new engine to the complainant’s car on free of cost and the 3^rd opposite party is directed to handed over the vehicle to the complainant on roadworthy condition within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Further the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony  to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4 and also to pay a sum Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant.

The above amount shall be payable by the 1 to 4 opposite parties within two  months from the date of receipt of this copy of the order, failing which, this said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 18^th July 2019.

    -Sd-                                                   -Sd-                                                              -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                       MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the 3^rd opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 4^th opposite party:-

-Nil-

          -Sd-                                                                 -Sd-                                                                             -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                       MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT