Haryana

Ambala

CC/275/2017

Dr. Ashwani Ummat - Complainant(s)

Versus

ElEGANT Honda - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. Garg

15 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  275 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  01.08.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  15.05.2019

Dr. Ashwani Ummat R/o F-21, M.M.University Campus, Mullana, District  Ambala. 

  ……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

1.       Elegant Honda(Kishiv Motors) Pvt Ltd. 9 K.M. Stone, Village Khuddi, Near Pearls Ford, Ambala Jagadhari Road, Ambala.

2.       Honda Cars India Ltd. Plot No.A-1, Sector-40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201306.

.…. Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Coram:       Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                            

Present:       Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. S.R.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Sh. Manish Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

 

Order:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To replace  the vehicle, with a new one of the same model or in alternative to refund the entire amount of Rs.9,95,901/- paid towards the defective vehicle by the complainant and Rs.1,40,000/- towards the registration & insurance of the vehicle.
2. To pay of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. 
3. To pay Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

Or

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a car, model Honda BR-V 1.5 SMT (i-VTEC) bearing chasis no. MAKDG174FG4000170, Engine No.L15A13100987, Color White Orchid Pearl from OP No.1, after paying Rs. 9,95,901/- against the invoice number SAL-INV-DD206-1617-85 dated 31.08.2016. This car has been manufactured by OP No.2. From day one, performance of the vehicle in question was not up to the mark and the same was having an abnormal noise from engine, especially when the speed of the vehicle remained between20-40km/h. The complainant on the next day of purchase  contacted the OP No.1, for resolution  of the problem  to which  authorized  representative of OP No.1, asked the complainant to drive the vehicle upto 500-600 km where after everything will settle down as it is a new vehicle. However, even after following his instructions, there was no change in the abnormal noise after driving the vehicle upto 500kms. The complainant was pained to observe said abnormal noise and again contacted the OP No.1 in the month of October-November, 2016 for resolution of the defect. The vehicle was checked by Sh.Gurpreet Singh and it was accepted that there is some kind of noise in the vehicle. The sound of the vehicle was recorded in the mobile phone and the same was handed over to the technical team of the OP No.2, who was to report within 15 days. The complainant on 07.01.2017 again brought the car to OP No.1 workshop for resolution of the problem. The technical team inspected the vehicle and accepted that some unfamiliar engine sound is there but could not provide any resolution of the same. Being annoyed with no response from OPs side, complainant again on 09.02.2017 brought his vehicle in the workshop of OP no.1 but the authorized agent i.e. Technical team and the Area Manager of the Ops backed out from their assurance. The cause of action arose on 02.09.2016 when the complainant noted some abnormal noise from the engine of the car. Since the OPs failed to rectify the defect, therefore, there is a continuous cause of action. The complainant sent a legal notice to the Ops on 08.04.2017 but OPs not responded to the legal notice. Since, the OPs failed to rectify the defect of the car, therefore the complainant requested them either to replace the said car with a new one or to refund the price thereof. But OPs did nothing. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice OP No.1, appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false & baseless. On merits it is stated that there is no abnormal noise coming from the engine, as it is an operational noise, which used  to come from every vehicle, which was also  got inspected and checked by the Service Engineer of the OP No.2 in the presence of complainant. All other averments of the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Upon notice OP No.2, appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false, Vexatious  & baseless; no cause of action and no jurisdiction. On merits it is stated that as per the information received that on 09.02.2017, complainant made a complaint to OP No.1, regarding abnormal sound coming from the engine of the car. After receiving the complaint, the complainant was requested to come to the workshop to take a test drive. He took test drive not only of his car but of other three vehicles, just to check as to whether any abnormal sound is coming from the engine of his car. On testing, it was found that   no abnormal noise was coming from the engine of the car of the complainant. It is further stated that relationship shared between OP No.2 and OP No.1 is on Principal to Principal basis as defined under the Dealership Agreement. The ancillary services as after sale service are exclusively provided by authorized dealers i.e. OP No.1 and not by the OP No.2. It is only in the case of any manufacturing defect that OP No.2 is required to meet its obligations as per the terms of the warranty. Any grievance with respect to deficiency in service can only made against OP No.1. All other averments of the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit Annexure C/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1, tendered affidavit Annexure R/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP No.2, tendered affidavit, Annexure RW2/A alongwith document, Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the day one of the purchase, the car of the complainant was not working properly. There was some abnormal noise in the engine especially at the speed of 20 to 40km/h. Inspite of repeated repairs the engineer of the OPs failed to rectify the defect. Perusal of expert report dated 24.08.2018, Annexure C-9, reveals that the expert has opined as under :

1.       Vehicle was inspected by driving at various speeds on road as well as various RPM of engine.

2.       Engine delivered smooth noise upto1000 RPM but beyond this it delivered humming noise.

3.       Same humming noise was observed between speeds of 20 to 40 KM/H.

4.       However, petrol engines generally produce humming noise but said vehicle had high amplitude of humming noise than others.

 

From the said report, it is abundantly clear that some abnormal noise is coming from the engine of the car in question. On 07.01.2019, during the course of argument, both the parties agreed for rectification of abnormal noise coming from the engine of the car. Accordingly, on 20.04.2019, complainant had taken his car to the service centre of OP No.1 for its repair/rectification of the defect(s). The engineer of the OP No.1 checked the car but nothing was done for rectification of the noise coming from the engine of the car. Engine is the basic part of a vehicle and even after repeated repairs, the OPs failed to rectify the defect occurred in the engine of the car in question, therefore, they may be directed to replace the car in question with new defect free car of the same model or to refund the price thereof. They be also directed to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that there   is no defect in the car of the complainant. After getting expert report complainant brought his car for repair/service to the service centre of the OP no.1. It was thoroughly checked by the engineers of the OP No.1 and after doing the needful, the car was handed over to the complainant in roadworthy condition but he refused to sign the job sheet. There is no abnormal noise immerging from the engine of the car of the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the OPs, therefore, the same may be dismissed with heavy costs.

6.                From the perusal of e-mails, Annexure C-2 to C-5, exchanged between the complainant and OP No.1, it is evident that the complainant had taken his car to the OP No.1, with the complaint regarding abnormal sound/noise coming from the engine of the car. Whereas the stand of the OP No.1 is that no abnormal noise/sound is coming from the engine of the car. However, from the expert report, Annexure C-9, it is apparent that some abnormal noise was coming from the engine of the car. Meaning thereby, there is some defect in the engine of the car in question. It is pertinent to mention here that after getting the expert opinion, complainant on 20.04.2019, again took his car for rectification of defect(s) to the service centre of the OP No.1. As per the OP No.1, after doing the needful, job sheet was provided to the complainant but he refused to sign the same. From the perusal of job sheet dated 20.04.2019 Mark ‘A’ and manual repair order Mark ‘B’, it is revealed that the entire job which was/is carried out by the engineer concerned has not been mentioned therein, where from this Forum could be convinced that specific defect with regard to noise in the engine has been got rectified. Furthermore even the remarks of the engineer / mechanic, who allegedly rectified the said defect, are found missing in the said job sheet. As such we are of the considered opinion that the contention raised by the complainant that the vehicle of question is suffering from defect holds the field. Under these circumstances, we feel it appropriate that the OPs shall replace the engine of the car in question free of cost. Not only this, the OPs shall also compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To replace the defective engine with the new one, free from all defects. However, it is made clear that fresh warranty on the new engine shall be given by the OPs from the date, when the same is made functional in the said car.
2. To Pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigations expenses.

 

The Ops are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order failing which the Ops shall pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.40,000/-for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 15.05.2019

 

 

 

                    

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)   (Ruby Sharma)       (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member                    President