BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 21 of 2017
Date of Institution : 2.2.2017
Date of Decision : 20.12.2017
Manoj Kumar aged about 38 years son of Shri Harbans Lal resident of Bank of Baroda Street, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Decent Honda near Shakti Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
2. Honda Motor Cycles and Scooters Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon District Gurgaon
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Aashish Vashist, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief the case of complainant is that on 15.02.2016, the complainant had purchased a brand new Honda Activa Vehicle from the opposite party no.1 and op no.1 had charged a sum of Rs.61911/- from the complainant against proper bill. After purchase of the aforesaid vehicle the complainant got the same registered with the concerned Licensing Authority under Registration No.HR24W/5853. It is further averred that after purchase of the aforesaid vehicle, the same started releasing undesired sound from its engine only after one day of its purchase. Not only this there was an acute problem in its self start function. There was also an undesired voice from the front head light portion of the vehicle. Immediately after coming to know about the same, the complainant visited the op no.1 and brought this fact to his knowledge. The op no.1 generally checked the said vehicle. After checking technical fault was found and the op no.1 assured the complainant that as and when their engineer shall visit to their service centre, the same shall be got checked from him. On checking by the engineer, some parts of the vehicle were replaced but the problem remained as it was. Thereafter, the vehicle was again got checked from the engineer and on checking manufacturing defect was found by him. It is further averred that more than seven months have been passed but the problems in the vehicle have remained as it is and the complainant has been making rounds to the office of the op no.1 time and again and has been making regular request to put the same in function but in vain. Such act and conduct on the part of the ops comes under the ambit of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The ops in this manner have caused unnecessary harassment, humiliation and hardship to the complainant for which he is legally entitled to be compensated and a heavy penalty is required to be imposed upon the ops for adopting gross negligence in providing the services. It is further averred that complainant had also got issued a legal notice to the ops on 06.05.2016 calling upon the ops to replace the aforesaid vehicle with new one or in the alternative to refund the amount of the vehicle with interest to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment caused to him but to no effect. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed its written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, suppression of material facts, no deficiency in service and estoppel etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant after purchase of the above Honda Activa, availed the services on the said vehicle on following dates with different job types:-
Date | KM | Job Type |
3.3.2016 | 306 | First Service |
7.3.2016 | 523 | General Check-up |
14.3.2016 | 609 | General Check-up |
28.5.2016 | 1773 | Free Second Service |
20.6.2016 | 2285 | Accidental condition |
22.6.2016 | 2285 | Third Service |
6.10.2016 | 3790 | Fourth Service |
11.10.2016 | 3797 | Accidental condition |
21.1.2017 | 5387 | Paid service |
As detailed above, the complainant brought the above Activa in an accidental condition at the workshop of the op no.1 on 20.06.2016 and then on 11.10.2016. It is further submitted that it shows that the complainant did not properly handle and drive this vehicle. There was no alleged defect in the said vehicle. The complainant after availing the services of his vehicle, signed the job sheet after fully satisfying with the working and performance of his vehicle. There was no technical fault in the said vehicle of the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, Ex.C1 copy of RC, Ex.C2 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C3 postal receipts, Ex.C4 copy of retail invoice and Ex.C5 copy of legal notice, whereas, ops have tendered Ex.R1 affidavit of Karan, Works Manager, Decent Honda, Ex.R2 copy of vehicle service history and Ex.R3 copy of complaint description.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased Honda Activa from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.61,911/-. It is also proved fact on record that vehicle of the complainant is within warranty. As per allegations of the complainant after purchase of the vehicle, the same started releasing undesired sound from its engine only after one day of its purchase and there was acute problem in its self start function and there was also an undesired voice from the front head light portion of the vehicle. The complainant apporahced the op no.1 for the problems which he was suffering in his Honda Active and some parts of the vehicle were replaced. As per allegations of the complainant, some manufacturing defect was found on checking his vehicle and problem continued to that effect and did not get vehicle duly repaired despite serving legal notice. The complainant has also furnished Ex.C1 copy of RC, Ex.C2 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C3 postal receipts, Ex.C4 copy of retail invoice and Ex.C5 copy of legal notice. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Karan, Works Manager, Decent Honda as Ex.R1 in which he has deposed on the lines of defence plea that complainant had brought the vehicle in an accidental condition on 20.6.2016 and then on 11.10.2016.
6. Learned counsel for ops has contended that ops never refused to carry out necessary repair during warranty period of the complainant and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and no replacement is required.
7. During the course of arguments, it has been conceded by learned counsel for parties that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle but it is the legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repairs in the vehicle if same is required and vehicle is within warranty. Since the repair was not carried out by the ops as per the version of the complainant that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the ops.
8. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs of the vehicle and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any without any costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order subject to production of the same by the complainant to op no.1. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:20.12.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
