BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 231/2008 Filed on 10/10/2008

Dated: 15..12..2010

Complainant:

Sygol Castro, TC 32/895 (1), Seenalayam, Vettukadu, Beach – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. JCT Motors, Dealer, represented by Works Manager, Hero Honda Sales, Spares and Service, Paruthippara, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. M/s. Hero Honda Motors Limited, represented by South Zonel Engineer-in-charge, 3-E2, Third Floor, Saniya Plaza, Mahakavi Bharathiyar Road, Near KSRTC Bus Stand, Cochin – 682 035.

3. M/s. Hero Honda Motors Limited, Head Office, 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057.

   (Opp. Parties 1 to 3 by Adv. Anil K. Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 30..09..2010, the Forum on 15..12..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant had purchased a Hero Honda Scooter (Pleasure) from the 1^st opposite party JCT Motors on 17/03/2007, that the next day itself the said vehicle developed starting complaints and the same was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party, that 1^st opposite party informed him that the said problem will be cleared in due course of running of the vehicle, that even after repeated services the aforesaid problem continued, that in addition to that the vehicle developed other problems such as complaint to the ignition switch, handle lock etc.... that though opposite parties assured 60KM/litre the vehicle never got mileage exceeding 40 KM/litre petrol, that even after changing the service centre as directed by the 2^nd opposite party the problems of the vehicle continued, that the above said problems repeated because of manufacturing defects of the vehicle. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,23,2 50/- towards the price of the vehicle, compensation and cost.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending inter alia that complainant had purchased the said vehicle from 1^st opposite party and the same was delivered in perfect condition on 17/03/2007, that there was no complaints to the ignition switch or handle lock at the time of delivery of the vehicle to the complaiant, that rash and improper use might have caused complaints to the ignition switch and handle lock, that complainant has brought the vehicle for first regular free service on 16/04/2007, that again on 2/07/2007 he brought the vehicle for second regular free service after running 3500kms, that third service was on 07/11/2007 after running 7618 kms, that again he brought the vehicle to 1^st opposite party on 12/01/2008 for oil change after running 10164kms and on 26/02/2008 he brought the vehicle for fourth service after running 11785 kms, that again on 2/06/2008 he brought the vehicle for fifth service after running 14949 kms, that he had not raised any complaints regarding starting trouble or ignition switch or handle lock on all these occasions, that on 11/6/2008 he brought the vehicle to 1^st opposite party after running 15176 kms, that on 25/08/2008 complainant brought the vehicle after running 16943 kms to the 1^st opposite party with complaints of starting trouble and front sound, that the said complaints were rectified on the very same day and the vehicle was kept ready for delivery, but the complainant had not come to collect the vehicle, and that on 28/08/2008 he had come and collected the vehicle after fully satisfying about the repairs done and performance of the vehicle, that many of the allegations are only imaginations and the allegations are made with ulterior motive to enrich at the expense of others, that the 1^st opposite party had always attended to the complaints raised by the complainant and complainant had received back the vehicle to his full satisfaction. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the vehicle is having manufacturing defects?

    

2. Whether the defects, if any, are repairable?

    

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

4. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the purchase price?

    

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any other reliefs?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P30 and Commission Report as Ext. C1. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. Opposite parties have not filed affidavit or any documents.

4. Points (i) to (v) : Admittedly, on 17/3/2007 complainant had purchased a Hero Honda Scooter (Pleasure) from the 1^st opposite party JCT Motors. It has been the case of the complainant that the next day itself the said vehicle developed starting complaints and the same was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party and that 1^st opposite party informed him that the said problem will be cleared in course of running of the vehicle. It has also been the case of the complainant that even after repeated services by the opposite parties the aforesaid problem continued, in addition to that, the vehicle developed other problems such as complaint to the ignition switch, handle lock etc.... It has been contended by the complainant that though opposite parties assured 60KM/litre the vehicle could not attain mileage exceeding 40 KM/litre petrol, that even after changing the service centre as directed by the 2^nd opposite party, the Hero Honda Motors Ltd., South Zonal Office, opposite parties could not rectify the complaints of the vehicle. Complainant's evidence consists of oral testimony and Exts. P1 to P30. To ascertain the problems an expert commission was deputed by this Forum and Commission Report has been marked as Ext. C1. As per Ext. C1, the vehicle in dispute was delivered to the complainant on 17/3/2007 by the 1^st opposite party, that most of the service and maintenance works of the vehicle including free services were done at the service centre of M/s JCT Motors, the last service before inspection was done at the service centre of another Hero Honda Dealer M/s. Cheran Automobiles, Trivandrum, the side stand of the vehicle fitted from M/s. JCT Motors is not a standard accessory with the vehicle. It was an extra fitting done on the vehicle by the petitioner by paying extra money. Commissioner in his report has stated that no manufacturing defects were noticed on the vehicle during the inspection, that the vehicle was having only service problems at the time of inspection. That it was not serviced in time and it was not properly tuned for the best and optimum performance, the Engine of the vehicle is in a fairly good condition, that the service team at JCT Motors and finally at M/s. Cheran Automobiles could not rectify the problems on the vehicle, which was due to the lack of technically qualified and factory trained mechanics with sufficient experience. It has been remarked by the Commissioner that the intervention of the Service Manager of Hero Honda has solved all the problems related to the vehicle, that the earlier complaints related to starting, idling, mileage, steering lock etc... has been solved. Relevant parts were dismantled and repaired in the presence of the complainant by the service team of M/s. Hero Honda; and complainant has expressed satisfaction on the performance of the vehicle to the expert Commission. In his cross examination by the opposite parties, complainant has admitted that complaints related to the vehicle has been solved in the presence of the expert commissioner, but the said problems were not rectified by the opposite parties till the filing of this complaint. Complainant has deposed further that the aforesaid problems were rectified by the opposite parties only after the problems were ascertained by the Commission. Though opposite parties offered a refund of the commission batta to the complainant, complainant was not amenable for a settlement on the ground that though the matter was brought for settlement on several occasions, opposite parties were not willing to settle it. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that though the vehicle developed troubles much earlier and which was brought to the notices of the 1^st opposite party no earnest effort was made by 1^st opposite party to solve the grievance of the customer in time. The grievances of the customer were solved only after the complainant had approached this Forum and after an expert commission was deputed to ascertain the defects of the vehicle in dispute. Since no manufacturing defects were noticed on the vehicle during inspection, we find complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the manufacturing company. It is to be noted that the vehicle in dispute was having only service problems which were solved in the presence of expert commission to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is to be noted that had vehicle in dispute been got timely service and solved the grievances in time, complainant would not have preferred such a complaint before us for a redressal. Admittedly, complainant had remitted Rs. 2,000/- towards commission batta for ascertaining the defects of the vehicle in dispute. We cannot overlook the agony suffered by the complainant in this regard. Opposite parties have not filed affidavit to substantiate their contention in the version nor filed any material in support of their version, nor filed objection to Commission Report.

In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on records we find there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. 1^st opposite party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of December, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No. 231/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Sygol Castro

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Posting Certificate

P2 : Letter issued from complainant

P3 : " "

P4 : Service Book (Preface page)

P5 : Delivery Certificate

P6 : Photo of stearing lock

P7 : " "

P8 : Receipt dated 2/10/2007

P9 : Invoice No. 11587 dated 7/11/2007

P10 : " No. 15203 dated 12/01/2008

P11 : " No. 3009 dated 24/5/2008

P12 : " No.3409 dated 2/6/2008

P13 : " No. 3534 dated 04/06/2008

P14 : " No.7548 dated 13/08/2008

P15 : " No. 8097 dated 22/08/2008

P16 : " No. 8443 dated 28/08/2008

P17 : " No. 10701 dated 7/10/2008

P18 : " No. 10284 dated 24/09/2008

P19 : Phone bill dated 26/08/2008

P20 : Phone bill dated 26/09/2008

P21 : Service book of Hero Honda

P22 : " "

P23 : Visiting card of Venus Motors Sales and Service

P24 : Invoice No. 1008 dated 18/4/2009

P25 : Retail Invoice cash/credit dated 1/6/2009

P26 : Bill No. 1149 dated 1/6/2009

P27 : Service bill dated 1/6/2009

P28 : Warranty of Hero Honda Motors Ltd.

P29 : Receipt of Second Free Service dated 2/7/2007

P30 : Receipt of First Free Service dated 16/4/2007.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

V. Court witness : NIL

VI. Court Exts : Commission Report.

PRESIDENT