Kerala

Idukki

CC/341/2016

Prakash Kumar KK - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Muthoot Honda - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Babychan V George

30 Mar 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 30.11.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2021

Present :

                   SMT. ASAMOL  P.                           PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

                   SRI. AMPADY K.S.                          MEMBER

CC NO.341/2016

Between

Complainant                             :         Prakash Kumar K.K., S/o. Krishnan,

                                                          Kallukalayil House,

                                                          Thadiyoor P.O.,

                                                          Pathanamthitta – 689 545.

                                                          Presently residing at

                                                          Sreyas House,

                                                          Nedumkandam P.O.,  

                                                          Idukki – 685 553.

                                                          (By Adv:  Sebastian Thomas)

And

Opposite Parties                       :   1.   The Branch Manager,

                                                          Muthoot  Honda,

                                                          Nedumkandam P.O., Idukki.

                                                    2.   The Manager, 

                                                          Muthoot  Honda,

                                                          Vellayamkudy P.O.,  Idukki.

                                                    3.   Muthoot Motors, 35/177A,

                                                          Near KSEB Office,

                                                          Ernakulam-Aluva Road,

                                                          Palarivattom, Kochi – 682 025.

                                                          (All by Adv: Gem Korason)

                                                    4.   The Managing Director,

                                                          Honda Motorcycle and Scooter

                                                                        India Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                          Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar,

                                                          Gurgaon District, Haryana – 122 050.

                                                                                                (cont….2)

• 2  -

O R D E R

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

                Case of the complainant is as follows :-

1 .   The complainant purchased a Honda CB unicorn 160 motor cycle from 1^st opposite party on 18.12.2015 and the vehicle is bearing registration No.KL-69-9383.  The said vehicle costs Rs.85,435/- on the road.

2 .   Within 3-4 days of purchase itself, the complainant noticed that the ‘Mono Suspension Shock absorber’ which is an exclusive feature of Unicorn Bike was not functioning properly.  Complainant felt much difficulty and back pain while riding the vehicle through ordinary uneven roads and gutter roads etc.  Each  shock while riding was directly transferred to complainant lending a thorough bad experience.

3 .  The most attractive feature of the said vehicle itself is its Mono Suspension Shock Absorber which gives a comfortable shock absorbing and riding experience than ordinary bikes.  By this feature comparatively the shock transferred to ride will be much lower to other bikes.  This feature has been highlighted by the opposite parties in its all advertisements and attracted by the above feature, complainant had purchased the above said bike for his extensive travelling.

4 .   After suffering the inconvenience for some more days, complainant took the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party’s work shop and they adjusted the said ‘shock absorber’, but it was in vain.  The complainant had made an online complaint on last of February, 2016 and the 4^th opposite party duly acknowledged the complaint through their reply e-mails dated 1.3.2016 and 2.3.2016.  On 5.3.2016, shock absorber was replaced but there was change in the situation.  Evenafter the opposite parties were not able to cure the inherent manufacturing defect and as per the advice of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant did special upholstery spending Rs.1500/- to suit the situation.  But the said effort also did not make any benefit to the complainant.  The said vehicle is subject to inherent manufacturing or engineering defects which the vehicle can not be practically used without curing it.                    

                                                                                              (cont….3)

• 3  -

5 .  Complainant  alleges deficiency in service against opposite parties as the defect was not cured by them till day or made it suitable for riding.  Opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as the compensation for this deficiency in service to the complainant.  Moreover, complainant was not able to use the vehicle for his day to day official and personal use since its purchase till day.  He was forced to use taxi and his own car to meet the situations which adds more expenditure for his travel.

6 .  Complainant has undergone all the services of bike at the appropriate time through opposite parties as stipulated in the owners manual.  Apart from that, vehicle is now within the warranty period and the opposite parties have also given an extended warranty for a period of 5 years on extra payment.  Hence the complainant approached the Commission and filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties and prays that the Commission may be pleased to grant following reliefs.  (a)  To direct the opposite parties to cure the alleged defects by repairing or replacing the defective parts.  (b) To replace the defective vehicle with a new one or pay back Rs.85,435/- to the complainant with 12% interest from 18.12.2015.  (c)  To pay Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant for the deficiency in service caused to the complainant and Rs.50000/- for mental agony and also cost Rs.5000/- may be allowed.

          Notice served from the Commission to all opposite parties.  The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed detailed written version.  The 4^th opposite party not appeared, hence set exparte.

          The 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have submitted as follows :-

1 . They denied all the averments in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder.  The complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  It is true that the complainant purchased a vehicle on 18.12.2015 and it is purchased after test drive and on full satisfaction.  The complainant did not revealed about the alleged defect during the 1^st and other service period.  The vehicle was returned to the complainant after full satisfaction of the complainant and the same was also acknowledged by the complainant in writing.  There is no such complaint as alleged by the complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                               (cont….4)

• 4  -

          2 .  While the complainant approached the opposite party alleging some deficiency in functions of the shock, the opposite party had removed and replaced the shock absorber with new one.  The opposite party is not hesitated in providing valuable service to the complainant instead the opposite party was ready to replace the part itself eventhough it was not having any problem.

          3 .  There is no manufacturing or engineering defects in this vehicle as alleged by the complainant.  The contention that the vehicle had run 3326 km in all months is quite normal usage of vehicle and the same itself reveals that there is no defects as alleged by the complainant.

          4 .  The alleged defect is only on the mental discomfort and feeling of the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party.  Eventhough there is no defect on the shock absorber, the opposite parties had replaced the same on the request of the complainant.  The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.

          5 .  The opposite parties had all favours by changing the parts under the warranty as per the request of the complainant.  The opposite party had done accordingly and the alleged complaints covered under the warranty were cured and the complainant had recorded his full satisfaction after the test drive of the vehicle and further he had recorded his full satisfaction and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant.

          6 .  The details of the vehicle are stated in the brochure and service manual and the entire details of the vehicle was informed to the complainant at the time of purchasing the vehicle.  The complainant had purchased the vehicle with full satisfaction. 

          7 .  The vehicle is a successive product of the Honda Company.  The performance of the vehicle is better than stated by the company.  The said allegation is baseless and not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Hence it may be dismissed.                                                                                                                                                                                                        (cont….5)

 

 

• 5  -

          The point arose for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

          Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of expert commission report dated 13.12.2019.  The 1^st expert report was set aside on 18.6.2019.  No objection filed by opposite parties to the commission report.  No evidence adduced by opposite parties.

          The POINT :-  Both parties have not filed argument notes and have not heard arguments from both sides.  However we have decided the case on merits.  For that, it is inspected and considered that the commission report dated 13.12.2019 filed by experts of Govt. Polytechnic College, Nedumkandam.  The members of the panel of experts inspected the vehicle at various road conditions and concluded with the problems in the vehicle.  It is reported that the angle of inclination at which this rear mono-shock suspension was installed in this vehicle has reduced the shock absorbing capacity of the rear mono-shock suspension system.  It is revealed that the alleged Honda CB Unicorn 160 was withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer with some other reasons including customer’s dissatisfaction.  It is concluded that the expert commissioner is completely dissatisfied with the performance of the inspected vehicle with respect to the arguments raised by the complainant and is found true.

          It is admitted by the opposite parties in their written version that the complainant purchased a vehicle on 18.12.2015.  There is no bill or receipts produced with respect to the price of the vehicle by the complainant.  The complainant averred that the vehicle is within the warranty period.  But there is no warranty paper produced before the Commission. 

          As per the Commission report, it is found that the performance of the alleged vehicle is dissatisfied.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to cure the alleged defects of the vehicle.

          Hence the complaint is allowed.  The Commission directs the opposite parties to cure the alleged defects by repairing or replacing the defective parts as                                                                                                    (cont….6)

 

 

• 6  -

the case may be and thereby make the vehicle defect free to the satisfaction of the complainant and also directs the opposite parties to pay an amount of RS.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  The Commission also directs the opposite parties to pay Rs.4000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of March, 2021

                                                                             Sd/-

       SMT. ASAMOL  P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

                                      Sd/-

                                                         SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1            -  Bijulal D. Ram.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits  :   Nil.

 

                                                                                      Forwarded by Order,

 

                                                                             SENIOR SUP