Delhi

East Delhi

CC/725/2014

HIMANSHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

CAPITAL CARS - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST), GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 725/14

 

 

HIMANSHU JHA

Son of Late Shri M.P. Jha

House No. D-3, Seemant Vihar,

Ghaziabad, UP                                                                         ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/S CAPITAL CARS PVT. LIMITED

Prima Honda, Ansal Plaza

Main Link Road (Opp. Dabur Factory)

Vaishali, Ghaziabad - 201012

 

M/S CAPITAL CARS PVT. LIMITED

Plot No. 1, Patparganj Industrial Complex

Delhi – 110 092 (Regd. Office)

 

THE DIRECTOR

M/s Capital Cars Pvt. Limited

Plot No. 1, Patparganj Industrial Complex

Delhi – 110 092

 

MS. SUMAN BHARTI

Prima Honda, Ansal Plaza

Main Link Road (Opp. Dabur Factory)

Vaishali, Ghaziabad – 201012

 

THE DIRECTOR

Honda Cars India Limited

Plot No. A-1, Sector – 40-41

Surajpur – Kasna Road

Greater Noida Industrial Dev Area

Distt. Gautam Buddh Nagar – 201 306                                  ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.08.2014

Judgment Reserved for : 25.05.2016

Judgment Passed on : 26.05.2016

 

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The complainant Shri Himanshu Jha has filed a complaint against M/s Capital Cars Pvt. Limited, Vaishali (OP-1), M/s Capital Cars Pvt. Limited, Patparganj (OP-2), Director, M/s Capital Cars Pvt. Limited, Patparganj (OP-3), Ms. Suman Bharti, M/s Capital Cars Pvt. Limited, Vaishali (OP-4) and Director, Honda Cars India Limited, Greater Noida (OP-5), for issue of Road Side Assistance (RSA) certificate along with damages and compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-  with cost and other litigation charges.

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased Honda City SMT car on 17.09.2010 from OP-1.  Registration Certificate bearing registration no. UP14BD 2978 was issued by the competent authority on 18.09.2010.  It is said that OP-1 provided four years warranty and four years Road Side Assistance, which was valid from the date of purchase of car and it was included in the cost. 

3.        The said facility was effective from the date of purchase i.e. 17.09.2010 for four years i.e. 16.09.2014.  It is further stated that when the complainant went for service of the car on 06.06.2014, Mr. Sachin, the Service Supervisor, who attended the complainant, on checking the record, informed the complainant that RSA was due to expire soon on completion of four years period.  On his asking for renewal of the service, the complainant got the same renewed on payment of Rs. 1,750/-.  It was stated that courier would deliver RSA certificate for the renewed validity within two days.  Since, the said certificate was not delivered, the complainant made enquiries and it was delivered by courier to the complainant.  When the complainant checked the particulars, he was shocked to find the date of validity in the certificate from 31.08.14 to 31.08.15 instead of 16.09.14 to 15.09.15.  When the complaint of the complainant was not attended satisfactorily by the employees of OP-1, he approached OP-5 i.e. the Director, Honda Cars India Limited, who too assured to resolve the matter.  However, it remained unresolved.  The complainant sent a legal notice of dated 30.06.2014 that the date of the RSA of the complainant’s car be corrected and fresh certificate be issued.  Since, the complainant did not got any reply, he has filed the present complaint praying for issue of correct RSA certificate along with damages amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- with cost of litigation. 

4.        In the WS, filed on behalf of OP no. 1 to 4, they have stated that there was no deficiency on the part of OP no. 1 to 4.  They have further stated that the RSA certificate which ought to have been issued to the complainant from 17.09.14 to 16.09.15 had been wrongly issued from 31.08.14 to 31.08.15.  They have stated that there had been an inadvertent error while punching the details of the RSA.  It has further been stated that they have sent the amended RSA certificate vide e-mail dated 23.06.14 which was valid from 18.09.14 to 17.09.15.  Other pleas of the complainant have been denied.

5.        Rejoinder to the WS of OP no. 1 to 4 has been filed where the complainant has controverted the pleas of the OPs and have re-asserted his pleas. 

6.        In support of his case, the complainant has examined himself and has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited RSA Certificate of dated 12.06.2014 as Ex-CW/1, copy of emails exchanged with the officials of Prime Honda i.e. OP-1 as Ex-CW/2 (Colly), copy of all emails exchanged with the officials of Honda Car India Limited as EX-CW/3, legal notice as EX-CW/4 along with postal receipts as Ex-CW/5 (Colly.).

7.        OP no. 1 to 4 have also filed evidence.  They have examined Shri Jitendra Kumar Nanda, Director of M.s Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd.  He has deposed in his affidavit that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 to 4.  He has also got exhibited RSA Certificate which have been issued on 23.06.14 valid from 18.09.14 to 17.09.15.

8.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has admitted that he has received the correct RSA Certificate.  The fact that correct RSA Certificate which was valid from 18.09.2014 to 17.09.2015 have been issued by OP no. 1 to 4 and they have admitted their mistake that RSA Certificate was wrongly punched which led to issuance of wrong RSA Certificate, the typographical error occurred on the part of OP no. 1 to 4 was a bonafide one.  Since, they have issued the correct RSA certificate, the case does not survive.  Therefore, no directions can be issued for issuance of RSA certificate. 

9.        There has been no evidence on record to show that the complainant has suffered any damages.  Therefore, the question of awarding any cost does not arise.  The complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. 

File be consigned  to Record Room.

 

 (DR. P.N. TIWARI)              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

    Member                           Member                                     President