Haryana

Karnal

CC/452/2022

Punit Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Courtesy Honda, Lally Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhakar Mittal

27 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.452 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 04.08.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 27.11.2024

 

Punit Malik son of Shri Anil Malik, resident of house no.217, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal. Aadhar card no.9948 3766 0136.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Courtesy Honda, Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. no.117/8, Madhuban, G.T. Road-Karnal-132001.
2. Honda Cars India Limited, Plot no.A-1, Sector 40/41, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201306.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Sudhakar Mittal, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Govind Chauhan, counsel for the OP no.2

                   

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased one Honda City Car in December, 2017 from the OP no.1 for the consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- and thereafter registered the same with the Registration Authority with registration no.HR-05AW-5701. At the time of sale, OPs had given the three years warranty on all electronics parts in the vehicle. Since the very beginning, complainant was not satisfied with the electronic system installed in the car and he raised the issues before the OPs regarding non-functioning of the Audio Video Navigation System (AVN) installed in the car. The details of the incidents and correspondence regarding the complainant made for the complainants for replacement of AVN system area as under:-

.       On 07.07.2020, complainant on receipt of reply of OPs raised the issued regarding the damages of 3 tyres in same wheel and replacement of his music system, communicated to the OPs about a year back, but in their replies the OPs instead of giving satisfactory replies mentioning that tyre was inspected by the vendor and no manufacturing defect was observed by him. In email dated 09.07.2020, OPs advised the complainant to visit the dealership for inspection. The only purpose of the OPs was to delay the complainant to the extent of expiry of warranty period and immediately after expiry of the warranty period, OPs sent an email dated 08.12.2021 mentioning that replacement of AVM is considered under standard warranty only and the car was already out of standard warranty wherein in the email dated 07.12.2021, the OPs assured the complainant to revert back on the complaint in the next two business days and further solicit the co-operation from the side of the complainant. Bare perusal of these two emails shows the act and conduct of the OPS and deficiency on their part.

.       Since the purchase of the car, the complainant is regularly pursuing his complaint regarding non-functioning/defective AVN system. The emails dated 09.10.2021, 17.12.2021, 20.12.2021, 21.12.2021 and 22.12.2021 and also thereafter. On 04.12.2021, when complainant visited the OP no.1 for periodic service the AVN system was upgraded by the OP no.1 but instead of improvement the same stopped working. When this issue was raised with employees, the OP made a fraud by installing AVN system of some other car and sent the report and videos to head office so that they could be relived from their liability. There was regular correspondence in between the complainant and the OPs. The OPs in their last email dated 14.01.2022 made an offer to the complainant to bear the 50% amount of the AVN system for replacement of the same. This offer was summarily rejected by the complainant.

 2.            It is further averred that there was a manufacturing defect in the AVN system as well as in the right front wheel. The OPs have given false assurance to the complainant just to gain time and wait for the lapse of warranty period of the system. Non-replacement of the AVN system and installing of defective AVN system having sale price of Rs.64,228/- is all together illegal and not up to the mark to the reputation enjoyed by the OPs. Due to installation of a defective AVN system in the car and non-replacement of the same by the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment at the hands of the OPs. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to replace the AVN system with a new one or in the alternative to pay Rs.64228/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase of car till its realization, to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental pain agony, harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that car of the complainant was set right to the satisfaction of the complainant. There can be a defect in the machine because of any technical problem for which complaint can quench his grievances under the terms and conditions of the contract of warranty. But complainant intended to replace the major parts free of cost without any defect in the same. Services rendered by the OP no.1 are upto mark and by authorized and competent employees of the OP no.1. It is further pleaded that there was no such kind of complaint reported in the vehicle. Only at the time of 1000 Km free service on 02.04.2018, complainant reported AVN problem Blue tooth not connected. The same was got checked and found general issue and solved/removed by resetting the same to the satisfaction of complainant. Complainant was having no grouse of any kind at that time. Despite this complainant never reported this issue again. Complainant used to get the regular series done but there was no whisper of complaint in AVN system. When standard warranty is about to end, the sole intention of the complaint is to replace the major part with new one in warranty period without any defect. Complainant starts shooting mails to create evidence. Mails and complaints were duly attended and complainant was advised to get the complaints checked through authorized service station. Whenever, complainant visited the OP, the car of complainant is thoroughly checked and there was not any manufacturing defect. Complaint is blowing hot and cold in same breath. The whole complaint is being falsified by the contents of mails dated 17.12.2021 and 22.12.2021 sent by the complainant, in which complaint himself reported that AVN was in working condition. It is further pleaded that tyre problem reported by the complainant was not covered under warranty and the same got checked and duly complained to the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. There was no such kind of complaint reported in the vehicle. Car of the complainant was set right to the satisfaction of the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the AVN system as well as in the right front wheel. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant on 31.12.20217 purchased the Honda City bearing registration  no.HR-05AW-5701 from OP No.1, the authorized dealer of OP no.2 at Karnal. The complainant alleged that OP no.1 has caused numerous delays and undue hardship to the complainant when it experienced fault in Audio Video Navigation (AVN) of the vehicle in question and damages of front tires of the vehicle. The defect regarding damaged of front tires, as alleged by the complainant, is not present in the vehicle. The same has not been addressed to OP no.2 through any email. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant for replacement of AVN of the vehicle in question free of costs.  It is further pleaded that complainant has not attached any expert evidence to back the allegation of manufacturing defect. The complainant presented wrong facts that the alleged defect pertaining to defect in AVN of the vehicle arose somewhere in the year 2020, second there is damage of front tires, however, the service history states the contrary, third the same is not a manufacturing defect as the vehicle in question was used for 67874 kilometers until the December, 2021 when the alleged defect pertaining to AVN of vehicle in question was actually to OP no.1, vide emails. It is further pleaded that there are several discrepancies noted in the complaint, which are as under:-

1. The alleged defect pertaining to the damages in front tyre is never addressed to OP no.2 in any email whatsoever.
2. The alleged defect with respect to AVN arose in the year December, 2021 when the same was addressed to OP no.1, however, the contents of the complaint states that the alleged defect arose in the year 2020.

                The aforesaid contradictions go to show deliberate attempt on the part of the complainant to fit in the warranty period that extends for three years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The alleged defect qua the AVN was brought to the notice of OP no.2, vide email dated 24.12.2021 however, the standard warranty of the vehicle lapsed on 21.12.2020. The same was duly informed to the complainant vide email dated 04.01.2022 onwards. It is further pleaded that OP no.2 had offered a rebate of 50% on the cost of AVN of the vehicle in question to the complainant. It is further pleaded that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question with respect to the alleged defect. There is no assurance of any kind rendered by OP no.2 to the complainant. Further, the alleged defect cannot be said to be a manufacturing defect simply because the service history of the vehicle did not show the presence of the alleged defect and the mandate of expert evidence under section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not being followed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A , copies of emails dated 28.06.2020, 07.07.2020, 09.07.2020, 13.07.2020, 07.12.2021, 07.12.2021, 08.12.2021, 08.12.2021, 09.12.2021, 10.12.2021, 11.12.2021, 17.12.2021, 26.12.2021, 21.12.2021, 22.12.2021, 27.12.2021, 24.12.2021, 27.12.2021, 02.01.2022, 02.01.2022, 04.01.2022, 05.01.2022, 05.01.2022, 06.01.2022, 06.01.2022, 07.01.2022, 08.01.2022, 12.01.2022, 13.01.2022, 14.01.2022 Ex.C1 to Ex.C25 and closed the evidence on 15.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitender, Service Head Ex.OP1/A, copy of emails Ex.OP1, copy of VOC Ex.OP2, copies of repair orders Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP7, copy of tax invoice Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on 12.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Divakar Jangid Ex.OP2/A, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP2/1, copy of complete service record Ex.OP2/2, copy of correspondence via email Ex.OP3, copy of extract of warranty condition Ex.OP4, copy of dealership agreement Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 12.03.2024 by suffering separate statement. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that in December, 2017, complainant purchased a Honda City Car from the OP no.1 for the consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. From the very beginning of its purchase, the Audio Video Navigation System (AVN) installed in the car was not working properly. Despite repeated requests and visits, OPs upgraded the AVN system but instead of improvement the same stopped working. There was regular correspondence with the OPs through several emails. The OPs demanded 50% amount of replacement during the warranty period which was not justified. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and lot of harassment and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant reported the problem in AVN system on 02.04.2018, which was removed by the OP. The complainant never reported this issue again. When the warranty was about to end, the intention of the complainant is to replace the major part with new one in the warranty period without any defect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complaint in the above captioned matter, wherein the complaint pertains to alleged defect in a view which was removed by the OP no.1. The complainant reported the problem in AVN system on 02.04.2018, which was removed by the OP. The complainant never reported this issue again. When the warranty was about to end, the intention of the complainant is to replace the major part with new one in the warranty period without any defect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Complainant alleged that from the very beginning of purchase of the car, the Audio Video Navigation System (AVN) installed in the car was not working properly. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version complainant has placed on file, emails dated 28.06.2020, 07.07.2020, 09.07.2020, 13.07.2020, 07.12.2021, 07.12.2021, 08.12.2021, 08.12.2021, 09.12.2021, 10.12.2021, 11.12.2021, 17.12.2021, 26.12.2021, 21.12.2021, 22.12.2021, 27.12.2021, 24.12.2021, 27.12.2021, 02.01.2022, 02.01.2022, 04.01.2022, 05.01.2022, 05.01.2022, 06.01.2022, 06.01.2022, 07.01.2022, 08.01.2022, 12.01.2022, 13.01.2022, 14.01.2022 Ex.C1 to Ex.C25. On perusal of the said emails, it has been proved on record that AVN system of the car of the complainant was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning. The said defect occurred during the warranty period. OPs have failed to remove the alleged defect from the AVN system during the warranty period. It was the duty of the OPs either to remove the defect or to replace the defected AVN system during warranty period but OPs have miserably failed to do so. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the AVN system from the vehicle of the complainant with new one. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental, pain agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 27.11.2024    

                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                 Member                    Member