Delhi

East Delhi

cc/956/2013

SAURABH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

CAPITAL CARS - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2014

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi

          CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

 

Consumer complaint no.   716/2015

In matter of

Mr Saurabh Jain , adult

S/o P K Jain  

R/o- 24, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar Phase I

Delhi-110091………………………………………………………..…………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                             Vs

1-M/s Capital Cars Pvt Ltd.

Through its Director, Prime Honda

Plot no.1, Patpargunj Industrial Complex

Nr Mother Dairy, Delhi 110092

 

2-Honda Siel Car India Ltd

Through its Managing Directors

Plot no.- 1, Sec 40-41

Surajpur Kasana Road,

Greaer Noida Industrial Area,

Distt. - Gautam Budh Nagar, UP  201306……………………………….Respondents                                                                                                         

                    

                                                              Date of Institution - 13/31/2013

                                                              Date of Order         - 24/02/2016         

                                                                                                                                                   

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member : 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                   

Mr Saurabh Jain, complainant purchased a Honda city car SMT model, camelian red colour for Rs 9,07,001/-on 19/05/203 from OP1 who is a authorized dealer of Honda cars. The registration no. of car was DL13CC-2079. On the same date the complainant noticed color defects on bumper and bubbles so informed OP1 on next day.

He asked OP1 to replace the car and give a new one. The complainant again alleged that the car had dull color on the bumper of the car. The complainant asked for registration of the car. The OP1 said that the said car is booked on line at two places so registration will take 3-4 days.

The registration receipt was received by him on next day. The complainant took the said car to the workshop of OP1 on 28/05/2013. As per complaint, complainant wanted to get exchange his car for a new car as its bumper had some color spots. He also told OP1 that the paint over the body of his car has defective look. After preparing job card and inspecting the car, OP1 told complainant that OP1 is not liable for any exchange of the car for spots in bumper except giving services.

The complainant attached photographs of color spots. No service was taken by complainant. Again complainant took his car to workshop on 12/06/2013 and asked for exchange of his car. No job card was made but OP1 assured for repair of marks of color faded at some part of body, as shown by complainant and assured for giving their services in getting removed the faded color spots.

 

Complainant refused for any service and took away his car.

Notices were served. In the written version of OP 1,it is stated that as per their delivery check list and gate pass; the complainant had inspected the car thoroughly and after satisfaction, he had signed the documents. OP1 stated that if any shortcoming in the car was ever noticed at the time of delivery, it should not have been taken away. Complainant took the possession of car after inspecting in daylight from showroom. It is admitted that complainant brought the car at workshop for routine check up twice but did not tell anything about any defect or shortcoming. OP1 further stated that complainant brought his car on 28/05/2013 and his job card was prepared for the first time which is on record. Job card showed defects, color spots, bubbles and patches. As the complainant was insisting for exchange of his car to a new car OP1 stated that service will be provided for removing color spots as it is under warranty. But complainant refused to take services and took away his car.

The OP1 has further clarified that the invoice amount given to complainant included amount under different heads and Ex show room prices are different.

Complainant had misguided the Forum by quoting Ex Showroom price as the actual price of the car. The OP1 stated that maximum discount was given under different heads to the complainant.

OP1 further stated that as per delivery cum gate pass dated 19/05/2013 all details were checked and signed by the complainant.

In addition to this, the check list clearly show that complainant had checked and inspected the said car under various points specifically to SN 2 point 5 which reads as “ Any visible dirt or damages”. The check mark was ‘OK’ on same date.

 

 

OP2 in its written version has denied entire allegations of complainant. OP2 has stated that their liability is limited pertaining to any manufacturing defect under warranty only. OP 2 has relied upon many higher court’s judgments which are in their defence.

As the said car has been sold by their authorized dealer OP1 and before delivery from their storage place /warehouse to dealer place, a proper inspection is done by their designated engineers and only after due satisfaction and verification of vehicle/car is delivered to OP1. Selling a car is a discretionary independent marketing initiative of OP1 based on customer’s satisfaction. As the specific allegation of color fading in the said car is concerned, it is not pertaining to manufacturing defect.

Such defect can arise as per their details given in Warranty Booklet under their limitation clause Q which reads as “Any damage that results from soot and smoke, chemicals, bird dropping, sea water, sea breeze, salt, acid rain, or other similar items” are not covered under exchange of car. Under these points, no exchange is done but require only repair if car is under warranty period.

OP2 stated that they have relied on various judgments of Honble Supreme Court and National Commission where manufacturer has limited liability to exchange the good/vehicle if manufactured defects are proved.

OP2 submitted that in this case complainant has alleged fading of paint at different spots and brought to workshop after quite some time for which job card was prepared for the repair but complainant did not get the repair done.

 

 

 

The alleged defects are not manufacturing defects so OP2 is not liable but services will be provided by OP1 under warranty. Evidences on oath were filed by the both the parties on record. Arguments heard.

After scrutinizing the facts and evidences which are on affidavit, it is clear that complainant took the possession of his car after proper inspection in daylight at showroom. Thereafter complainant brought the car took his car to workshop after some time for color fading. Job card was prepared by OP1 which clearly shows that paint was faded at number of places over the body.

Complainant was insisting for the exchange of his car to new one. As the car was under warranty so repair was advised by the OP1 but complainant did not allow for service and took away his car.  

Secondly after going through the complaint, under para 6 second line on page 2, it is stated that the color of front bumper is dull from certain places. The complaint does not state about bubbles or paint damages on the car. More so, evidences on record as color photographs do not proves that the said car body has color defects.

This is not refuted by the complainant that he has not taken the delivery of the car after inspection and checking to his satisfaction. That means at the day of delivery of car, there was no complaint regarding color fading. This proves that color fading resulted post delivery of the vehicle. As such the same cannot be termed as manufacturing defect.

As per settled law, the replacement of car can only be allowed when there is a manufacturing defect. As per the terms of warranty, color fading can be repaired by the respondents under warranty period.

 

As such the respondent can only be responsible for removing defects which have arisen in the arisen on the body of the car, may it be due to expose due to any reason.

We allow this complaint partially. We direct respondent to repair the color defects in car if the vehicle is brought to the workshop under warranty.

In the above circumstances, there will be no order to compensation and cost.

The order copy be sent to the parties as per the rules.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                    Sh. N A Zaidi - President