BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 136 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 18.06.2020
Date of Decision : 06.02.2024
Rohini Dhawan wife of Hitesh Dhawan, resident of ERA Part-1, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Decent Honda Telmos Automobiles (P) Ltd. Near Shakti Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana).
2. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Commercial Complex II, Sector: 49 – 50 Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana (122018) India (Head Office India), through its Authorized Signatory.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. P.K. Kochar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that op no.2 is a two wheeler company and op no.1 is dealer of op no.2. On 14.11.2019 complainant had purchased a new two wheeler from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.69,651/- vide tax invoice dated 14.11.2019 and the said amount also included charges of accessories, registration, insurance etc. The op no.1 had given the guarantee of the vehicle for 24 months. That on the very next day of purchase i.e. on 15.11.2019 the complainant’s son Kabir Dhawan observed that the handle of the vehicle was pulling towards right side and there was sound from the front and rear part of the body and its self-start was also not functioning. It is further averred that on the same day her son went to the op no.1 and asked them to resolve the problems but they did not listen him rather stated him that it might by their mistake. That then after three days son of complainant and his friend Prince Chugh observed that there are lot of problems of boot opener and lock system was not functioning properly and as such son of complainant again visited op no.1 on fifth day of purchase of said vehicle and asked them to check and resolve the problems but still no satisfactory job was done by ops. That till 16th of December, 2019 i.e. vehicle’s first service the son of complainant visited the ops around six times and every time they used to open the vehicle and lubricate the lock system even in front of them and also applied physical force and pulled handle in opposite to stop pulling of handle and after that handle started shaking sometimes and they could not drive the motor cycle. It is further averred that they used to call the op no.1 and asked them to take the vehicle because the distance between their home and service centre is more than 10 Kms and after sometime they even stopped picking complainant’s phone and they also tried to contact Honda officials but there was no response from them. That after some days i.e. on 02.01.2020 they filed a complaint to Honda and thereafter their area service head took away the vehicle and after inspection they told that they have changed the handle. That thereafter when their neighbour’s son Sayal Behl drove the vehicle he also told that handle of the activa is pulling towards right and sound is coming from front side. It is further averred that they also noticed that there was gap in the under foot side panel and the front body and when they went to take the vehicle, the gap was filled by bending the body. That till date ops have not redressed the genuine grievances of the complainant despite their several requests and visits and have caused unnecessary harassment, deficiency in service and have also caused financial loss. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops either to replace the two wheeler with fresh new one of BS-6 edition or to refund the price amount alongwith interest and also to pay compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that it is wrong that any alleged guarantee was given by op no.1 to the complainant. As a matter of fact, the warranty is extended by the dealer to the customer as per warranty policy of the manufacturing company. That complainant availed the first free service of the vehicle on 16.12.2019 and at that time she did not report any defect in the vehicle. After the service, the complainant accepted the delivery of the vehicle and also executed the satisfaction voucher in favour of op no.1. That only mobile oil was changed on 16.12.2019. Thereafter on 09.01.2020, the complainant further availed the free service of the said vehicle with some complaint in handle which was removed to the entire satisfaction of complainant. In the meantime, the complainant lodged a false complaint with the manufacturing company and consequently on 05.02.2020 the op no.1 wrote a letter to the complainant and thereby she was conveyed that in case there is any defect in the said vehicle she can bring the same to the workshop of op no.1 and can get the same removed but she did not turn up. Thereafter on 13.04.2021, the complainant availed paid service of the vehicle with no defect and after service the complainant executed satisfaction voucher in favour of op no.1. There was/is no defect in the vehicle of complainant and replacement of any defective part of the vehicle is subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Karan Singh, Works Manager of op no.1 as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. From the tax invoice Ex.C9, it is evident that on 14.11.2019 complainant had purchased two wheeler Activa from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.54,072/- and also paid an amount of Rs.7438/- for insurance of the vehicle in question which is also evident from certificate of insurance cum policy schedule Ex.C11. The complainant also spent amount for registration of the vehicle in question and for its accessories. The two wheeler in question is manufactured by op no.2. The complainant is alleging defects in the Activa from just one day after its purchase. From the job cards Ex.R2, Ex.R3 and Ex.R5 placed on file by ops themselves it is evident that complainant was raising issues of handle problem in the vehicle in question to the ops every time besides other problems. The ops have failed to prove on record through any expert/ mechanical report that there is no problem/ defect in the handle of the vehicle and same is defect free rather from photograph of vehicle Ex.C4 and job cards placed on file, it is proved on record that there is defect in the handle of the two wheeler besides other problems and as the inherent defects occurred in the new vehicle just after purchase of the same and could not be removed by the ops, therefore, ops are liable to replace the vehicle in question with a new one of new edition.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to replace the vehicle in question with a new one of latest edition or to make refund of the amount of Rs.69,651/- (price amount) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.69,651/- from ops alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. It is made clear that in the event of replacement of vehicle in question by the ops, it is found that the price of the vehicle of latest edition is higher than the amount of Rs.69,651/- then remaining amount will be borne by the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President Dt. 06.02.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa
