BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.182 of 2017

      Date of Instt. 12.05.2017

      Date of Decision:10.05.2022

Rohit Madaan son of Sh. Satpal Madan (now deceased) through his wife/son/legal heir

1.       Ms. Amruta Madan wife of Rohit Madan

2.       Taraq Madan son of Rahot Madan

3.       Tripta Madan (mother)

          All residents of Preet Nagar Street No.4 Hoshiarpur District      Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainants

Versus

1.       Aspire Honda (Punj Auto Pvt. Ltd.) at Village Chak Gujjaran Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.

2.       Prestige Honda (Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd.), G. T. Road, Pragpur,           Jalandhar District Jalandhar.

3.       Honda Cars India Ltd. Plot No.A-I, Sector 40/41 Surajpur-Kasna      Road Greater Noida Industrial Development Area Distt. Gautam          Budh Nagar U. P. 2-1306 Zonal Office: (North & East Zone          same) through its Manager/M. D.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Nanda, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Umesh Dhingra, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

                   Sh. M. K. Jain, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant is the owner of the Honda Accord Car manufactured by the OP No.3 bearing registration No.PB05-T-0802, Engine No.40004723, Chassis No.5N201835. The OP No.3 is known as world class manufacture cars and its services and the Honda Accord Car is one of the model of the company and known as luxurious car of the company to which the company assured its customers to provide best class service through its authorized dealers and service center and also assured its customers to provide the every part of the car at least the period of fifteen years as per the Indian Government norms and rules to its customers. The complainant purchased the car in question for his personal use. The OPs No.1 and 2 are the authorized dealer and having authorized service center of the OP No.3 to provide cars and service to Honda customers being the authorized of OP No.3. The manufacturing year of the car is July 2005. The complainant felt some defect in automatic transmission of gear of the car while driving the same and could save himself and his family with the god of grace because the automatic gear transmission stopped working in gear shifting at a moment of time while driving the car. The complainant somehow reached at this house and next day i.e. 20.05.2015, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and told him about the defect in car i.e. Automatic Transmission in gear shifting of the car. The service advisor/engineer present there in the dealership/service center of the OP No.1 checked the vehicle and assured the complainant that the defect in gear shifting in automatic transmission is a minor defect and they will repair the same by changing the Liner Solenoid etc. and took the vehicle in their custody and promised to handover the vehicle within two weeks. The OP No.1 also provided estimate cost of repair of the vehicle to complainant to which the complainant was agreed if the defect of vehicle is removed by the OP. The complainant believed upon them being illiterate about car repair line and its parts. After passing of two weeks, the complainant approached the OP No.1 “Aspire Honda” for taking the delivery of the vehicle, but the vehicle was not ready for delivery as the OP No.1 did not repair the vehicle as per its promise. The OP No.1 assured the complainant to deliver the vehicle in the month of June 2015 with the excuse that the parts were not available with them and they had already approached the OPs No.2 & 3 and as and when they, will receive the above said parts, they will repair the vehicle of the complainant and handover the same in perfect working condition. In the first week of July 2015, the complainant received a telephone call from OP No.1 vide which the OP No.1 asked the complainant to take the delivery of the car as the car is ready for delivery after necessary repair. The complainant went there and took the test drive of the car before taking delivery. The complainant was not satisfied with the working of the car because the defect was same as it is as per earlier stage and told the OP No.1. The employees of the OP No.1 and 3 made many excuses to cover up their unfair trade practice that as the parts of automatic transmission has been changed and the said parts are new and it will take some time to adjust in working and the vehicle will run smoothly with the passage of time and asked the complainant to use the vehicle and assured the complainant towards working and responsibility of the vehicle. On the assurance the complainant agreed to take the vehicle being an innocent man because the OP No.1 assured the complainant that after driving some days of vehicle, if complainant feels same trouble/defect, than the OPs is here for provide world class service to complainant. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.26,453/- as per the bill and demand of the OP No.1 for repairing the vehicle of the complainant through bank transaction dated 13.06.2015 and 07.07.2015. The complainant approached the OP No.1 with his Honda Accord Car again and again and told them his grievance and apprehension about working of the car and every time the OP No.1 kept the complainant in dark with false assurances and promises by telling a lie and finally in the month of October 2015, the vehicle was again taken into custody by the OP No.1 with the assurance to remove the defect in the vehicle but the OP No.1 failed to do, hence there is deficiency in service and in the last week of November 2015 the OP No.1 asked the complainant to approach the OP No.2 for getting repair of the vehicle from them and further told that the OP has talked with the OP No.2 by bringing the matter into the notice of the OP No.3 because the OP No.2 has a lot experience in field and has a service center to deal with Honda Cars of OP No.3 for District Hoshiarpur customers also and further said that the OP No.1 is just new and took the complainant in their faith. The OP No.1 contacted the OP No.2 as well as on the helpline number of customer care of OP No.3 in the presence of the complainant and then the OP No.2 assured to remove the defect in the car and asked the complainant to provide them his Honda Accord Car in their service center at Jalandhar. On the instruction and assurance of the OP No.1, the complainant approached and reached in the authorized service center of the OP No.2 and 3 at Jalandhar where the service engineer inspected the vehicle and provided estimate bill of repair of the car of the complainant with 100% assurance to remove the defect in automatic transmission of the car and provided a estimate bill of Rs.82,351/-. The complainant showed them the repair done by the OP No.1, then the service engineer told that the parts changed by the OP No.1 while repairing the vehicle was not need to change in automatic transmission of gear box of the vehicle and provided estimate repair of bill of the vehicle which was around about Rs.82,351/- approximately. The complainant showed his consent to get repair his car from OP No.2 and when the complainant told them his apprehension and earlier act done by the OP No.1, then the OP No.2 and its employee started harassing the complainant by calling him again and again. They never tried to reply to the queries of the complainant about his progress in repair of car and asked him to come to their workshop at Jalandhar where they never attended him properly. A year has going to be passed, but the OP has failed to repair the car of the complainant till date and put the matter with one pretext to another and also started making lame excuses due to which the complainant harassed and suffered a lot with great mental as well as physical harassment by the act and behavior of the OPs. The OPs failed to repair the vehicle of the complainant till date hence there is a deficiency on their part and the OPs did malpractice, unfair trade practice and charged heavy amount from complainant. The OP No.2 openly stated to the complainant that until the complainant does not deposit an amount of Rs.31,188/- till then they will not handover the vehicle to the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to repair the car and deliver the same in perfect working condition as per their estimate costs dated 04.12.2015. OPs be further directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.26,454/- which the OP No.1 charged from the complainant unfairly and on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. There is no cause of action whatsoever against the answering OP. It is further averred as per the record of the answering OP, whenever complainant visited to the workshop of the answering OP, proper services were provided. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction. So, the present complaint is without any cause of action. It is further averred that the present complaint is having the complex question of law and facts so this Commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the car is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No consideration amount has been paid by the complainant to the answering OP till date. The complainant does not reveal any cause of action against the answering OP to file present complaint. So, present complaint qua the answering OP is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is trying to take undue advantage of his own faults, which is not permissible. Rather the complainant is harassing the answering OP through this complaint. So, present complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. The complainant has earlier filed the similar complaint before the Commission at Hoshiarpur which was returned by the Commission. Therefore, the present complaint is misuse of process of law. On merits, the factum with regard to ownership of the vehicle is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.3 is a car manufacturer company and can only be held liable in case of any manufacturing defect, if at all, in the car manufactured by the OP No.3. In the present complaint, neither the issue of manufacturing defect nor the complainant has made allegations of the manufacturing defect in his car. Therefore, impleading OP No.3 in the present complaint is uncalled for and baseless. It is further averred that there is no privity of contract between the OP No.3 and the complainant, therefore, the complainant cannot file the present complaint against the OP No.3. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of OP No.3 in the present complaint as the complainant has impleaded the OP No.3 without any cause of action against the OP No.3. The OP No.3 has neither given any services to the complainant nor has sold car to the complainant, therefore the complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it is admitted that OPs No.1 and 2 are the authorized dealers of the OP No.3, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. 6.             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence. OP No.3 tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OP3/A and Ex.OP3/B alongwith documents Ex.OP3/1 and Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 and OP No.3, very minutely.

8.                The contention of the complainant is that in the year 2015 the automatic gear transmission of his Honda Accord Car stopped working while driving the car at Village Chack Gujjaran, District Hoshiarpur. The OP No.1 checked the vehicle and assured the complainant that the defect is minor one and it will be repaired by changing the liner solenoid etc. The complainant left the car for repair, but the same was not repaired despite passing of two weeks. When the complainant visited them, OP No.1 assured that the parts are not available and they will hand over the car in the month of June, 2015. When in June, 2015 he went there and after taking the test drive of the car, he was not satisfied with the working. The employees of OP No.1 and OP No.3 made excuses that the parts have been changed and the part being new one, it will take time to adjust in working. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.26,453/-. Again in the               month of October, 2015 the vehicle again stopped working and it was taken into custody by OP No.1. They asked the complainant to approach OP No.2 for getting repair. When he approached OP No.2 and OP No.3 at Jalandhar, they gave him the estimate of Rs.82,351/-, but the car has not been repaired despite the long time taken by the OPs. They threatened the complainant to deposit Rs.31,188/-, otherwise they will not handover the vehicle. The practice adopted by the OPs is unfair trade practice and there is complete deficiency in service as despite the depositing of the amount by the complainant, the car of the complainant has not been repaired and he has suffered mental agony.

9.                The contention of the OP No.1 is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 that whenever the complainant visited the workshop of the OP No.1, proper services were provided to the complainant. The delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant to his full satisfaction. The defect pointed out by the complainant was removed. He has further submitted that the vehicle was repaired within a proper time frame whenever he got the parts from the competent authority. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. No harassment has been caused to the complainant, therefore there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 nor there is any deficiency in service. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

10.              The contention of the OP No.2 is that the present complaint is not maintainable as no services were provided to the complainant by OP No.2. No consideration amount has ever been paid by the complainant to the OP No.2 nor any cause of action arose against the OP No.2. It has been alleged by the OP No.2 that the complainant has purchased the second hand car from the original owner. He has further submitted that the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 04.12.2015, job sheet was prepared and after checking the vehicle, it was found that there is no other option except for to get completely changed the automatic transmission system with the new one and the same fact was conveyed to the complainant. The complainant refused to the change of the automatic transmission system as he cannot spend so much amount and requested to get the same repaired instead of changing the same. The estimated cost of the repair was Rs.82,351/-, but the complainant requested the OP No.2 to contain the expenditure in the range of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- through email on 11.12.2015. The complainant was informed that the exact amount of repair can be told only after the final repair to which the complainant agreed. He has further submitted that during the repair some of the parts were changed and the complainant was informed but the complainant asked the OP No.2 to remove all its parts installed by them as he wanted to get the vehicle repaired from New Delhi. The complainant was further informed that some of the parts cannot be uninstalled and request was made to deposit Rs.31,188/- of the parts which could not be uninstalled, but the complainant refused. The vehicle of the complainant is not in repairable condition because of the fault of the complainant as he had already got installed spare parts of other models in the vehicle from some other place known to complainant only. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2. Best services were provided to the complainant. The request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

11.              The counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that the OPs No.1 and 2 are neither an agent nor an employee of the OP NO.3, but they are separate and independent legal entities. The OP No.3 is not liable for any act of OP No.1 and OP No.2. OP No.3 is a car manufacturing company and the manufacturing company is liable only if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the vehicle in question, there is no issue of manufacturing defect, therefore no liability of the OP No.3 is there. OP No.3 is not a service provider. The OP No.3 is not liable as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.3. Therefore no cause of action arose against the OP No.3. The request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

12.              It is not disputed that the vehicle Honda Accord Car bearing registration No.PB05-T-0802 having manufacture year of 2005. The complainant purchased the second hand car. In the year 2015 as per the submission of the complainant, the car stopped as there was defect in automatic transmission system. It is not disputed that the Honda Car was not under warranty period. OP No.1 repaired the car, but again the car stopped and the same was taken to OP No.2 for repair. Ex.C-3 is the estimate given by the OP No.2, which shows that estimate of Rs.82,351/- was given to the complainant for the repair of his car and as per Ex.C-3, the alleged parts which could not be uninstalled, Rs.31,188/- as a bill was asked to be paid by the complainant. Ex.C-7 is the estimate/job sheet given by the OP No.1. As per this document, it was for a general repair and the oil was to be changed. Ex.C-6 is the receipt showing that the payment of Rs.10,000/- was given to OP No.1. Ex.C-8 is the email sent by OP No.2 vide which they have made the complainant aware about sending the estimate for the repair of the car and as per Ex.C-9, the complainant asked the OP No.2 to contain expenditure in the range of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. All these facts have been admitted by the OP No.1 and OP No.2. As per Ex.OP-6, which is a job sheet for the repair of the car dated 06.07.2015, in which visit date has been shown as 23.06.2015. This document shows that the fault found in the car was to Replace Solenoid Linear. Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-8 also show the detail of the parts to be repaired or changed, which has been mentioned in Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5. As per submission of OP No.2, the complainant was to deposit Rs.31,118/- for the parts installed in the vehicle which could not be uninstalled.

13.              From the above discussion, it is proved that the complainant purchased the Honda Accord Car model 2005 from the original owner. The car was sent for repair to OPs No.1 and 2. The OP No.1 repaired, but the same could not work and again OP No.2 repaired the car, but the amount of the repair has not been deposited by the complainant. It is also proved that the vehicle was not under warranty. As per the written statement of OP No.2, the car is lying parked in their garage and is not under the direct sun light as alleged. The complainant now wants that the OP No.2 and 3 should be directed to repair the car and deliver the same in perfect working condition as per their estimate and cost dated 04.12.2015. The car was sent for repair in the year 2015, the estimate was given by the OP No.2 in the year 2015, but the complainant as per his own email, was not ready to deposit the amount and rather he did not deposit the amount of repair as per the allegations of the OP No.2. The complaint was filed in the year 2017. Till 2017, he did not approach the OP No.2 for the repair. Now at this stage, after seven years of the estimate given by the OP No.2, the OP No.2 cannot be directed to repair the car as per the estimate and cost dated 04.12.2015.

14.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. However, if the complainant still wants to get the vehicle repaired and to get the parts changed, he can instruct so to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 shall repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant on his own (Complainant’s) expenses. Since, the OP No.3 is a manufacturing company and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as such there is no liability of OP No.3. The Complainant has not sought any relief against the OP No.1, therefore the OP No.1 can also not be held liable. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

15.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

10.05.2022         Member                          Member           President