Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/371/2014

The Officer In Chage, Surya Motors, and anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.Prabu - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Udhayashankar

15 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL           :      MEMBER

 

F.A. Nos. 371 of 2014 and 129 of 2015

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.40 of 2011 dated 15.09.2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Tiruvallur.

 

Wednesday, the 15^th day of June 2022

In F.A. No. 371 of 2014 :-

 

1. The Officer in Charge

    Surya Motors

    No.173, Mount Poonamallee Road

    Chennai.

 

2.  The Officer in Charge

     Honda Motorcycle & Scooter

        India Pvt. Ltd.,

     Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar

     Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana                                .. Appellants/Opposite Parties

                                                                       

                                                - Vs –

 

G. Prabu

S/o.M. Govindappan

No.50, East Park Road

Shenoy Nagar

Chennai – 600 030.                                              .. Respondent/ Complainant

                                                               

In F.A. No. 129 of 2015 :-

G. Prabu

S/o.M. Govindappan

No.50, East Park Road

Shenoy Nagar

Chennai – 600 030.                                               .. Appellant/Complainant     

 

Vs.

 

1. The Officer in Charge

    Surya Motors

    No.173, Mount Poonamallee Road

    Chennai.

 

2.  The Officer in Charge

     Honda Motorcycle & Scooter

        India Pvt. Ltd.,

     Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar

     Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana                                        .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

 

   Counsel for Appellants in FA No.371/2014 

      And Respondents in FA No.129/2015    :   M/s. P. Udhaya Shankar

                                                                        (No representation)

 

   Counsel for Appellant in FA No.129/2015

      And Respondent in FA No.371/2014      :  M/s. Elango

                                                               

        These appeals are coming before us for final hearing on 15.06.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant in FA No.129 of 2015 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

C O M M O N     O R D E R

 

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

                1.     Challenging the order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur in C.C. No.40 of 2011, the opposite parties have filed Appeal No.371 of 2014.  Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, as against the same order, the complainant has filed F.A. No.129 of 2015.   Both the appeals arise out of the same order and hence these appeals are disposed of, by a common order.

 

                2.  The Appellants in F.A.No.371/2014 who are the Respondents in F.A.No.129/2015 are the opposite parties.  The Complainant before the District Forum is the Appellant in F.A No.129/2015 and the Respondent in F.A. No.371/.  For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to here, as per the ranking before the District Forum.

 

            3.  The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the complainant is that he had purchased  a CBR 250R Honda Motor Cycle for Rs.1,63,569/- on the assurance of the 1^st opposite party that the vehicle is good in quality on road.  The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle CBR 250 R Honda Motor Cycle from the 1^st opposite party on 30.07.2011 at about 5 p.m.  The registration number of the vehicle is TN 02 AS 0770.  In the RC Book there was an error.  When he requested the 1^st opposite party to get it rectified from the RTO office, the 1^st opposite party had refused.  Normally, at the time of taking delivery, the seller will comply with all the formalities for the customers.  Since, the 1^st opposite party refused to rectify the error that had occurred in the RC Book, the complainant was made to run pillar to post, to get it corrected.  After taking delivery, the complainant found that the vehicle is producing noise.  On using the vehicle for 4 days, the complainant found that the noise is only from the engine and hence he handed over the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party on 06.08.2011, to rectify the noise and other problems.  The 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that the defect in the vehicle could be rectified within a day since it is only of minor in nature.  But, as assured by the 1^st Opposite party, it was not rectified.  The complainant went several times to the 1^st opposite party, from 07.08.2011 onwards.  But, there was no fruitful results.  Further, when he visited the 1^st opposite party, he saw his new branded vehicle in a dismantled condition in the service centre.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 24.08.2011 to the 1^st opposite party, but no reply was sent by the 1^st opposite party.  Finally, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 05.09.2011.  Since the same problem occurred again, the complainant left the vehicle on 07.11.2011 with the 1^st opposite party.  Thereafter, he took delivery of the vehicle on 19.11.2011. But, the problem in the engine was still continuing.  Hence, left with no other alternative, he has filed the complaint, praying for the following directions to the opposite parties:-

1. To return the cost of the vehicle Rs.1,63,569/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase till the date of realisation by taking back the old vehicle;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as damages to the complainant for mental strain, inconvenience, harassment, loss of reputation and mental agony;  and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

 

                4.  The 1^st opposite party has filed a written version stating that they are the sales dealer of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant had purchased CBR 250 R Honda Motor Cycle paying a sum of Rs.1,63,569/-. The said sum is inclusive of the cost of the vehicle, registration charges, insurance premium for the vehicle and miscellaneous expenses for the extra fitting to the vehicle (which are not part of the vehicle).  The complainant conveniently suppressed this fact in the complaint.  The registration charges and the insurance premium have to be paid to the Government authority and the Insurance company respectively.  The complainant being an Engineering Student, might have consulted many people and compared the CBR 250 R Honda Motor Cycle with the other vehicles in the market and only then he decided to buy the said vehicle.  Hence, he cannot make a hue and cry that he has spent huge amount to buy this bike.  Some of the buyers used to be present during registration and some do not.  In this case, the complainant was present during registration and he offered to collect the Registration Certificate (RC Book) from the RTO office, directly.  When the buyer himself was interested in collecting the RC Book, the 1^st opposite party as a good gesture allowed him to take the RC Book by the complainant himself from the office of the RTO.  In such case, if any mistake occurs in the RC book, it is not the responsibility of the 1^st opposite party to correct the same.  Furthermore, the 1^st opposite party had furnished the details based on the information submitted by the buyer only.  Hence, the mistake in the RC Book is due to the incorrect information provided by the buyer. The complainant had a test drive of the vehicle allotted to him and satisfied himself before paying the balance amount of Rs.1,58,952 and only thereafter he had taken delivery of the said vehicle.  If any repair is reported by the customer, it is the duty of the service staffs to look into it. In the instant case, the complaint of the complainant is that the engine is producing noise.  The complainant, after taking delivery of the vehicle, has left the vehicle for service, with the complaint.  Therefore, it is the duty of the service staffs to open the engine to carry out the repair mentioned by the complainant.  Without dismantling the engine, the repairs reported by the complainant cannot be carried out.  The 1^st opposite party is a world renowned maker of motor cycles and they have high standard quality control system.  All the products manufactured by them are subjected to the quality control system and only after passing the quality control test, the vehicles are allowed to go out of the plant, to their dealers.  The complainant had not followed the instructions given to him about the speed maintenance upto 1000 kms.  The youngsters, particularly, the college students like the complainant, drive the two wheelers in a reckless, rash and negligent manner in the traffic prone roads of Chennai.   So the complainant, to circumvent his faults, is making allegations against the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties have delivered only high standard quality product and only the complainant had mishandled it against the advice of the technical staffs and he is solely responsible for the loss claimed in the complaint and not the opposite parties.  If the complainant had followed the instructions of their technical staffs, then the complainant would not have suffered anything as falsely claimed by him.  Hence, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.    

 

        5.  The 2^nd opposite party has also filed a version stating that they are wholly owned subsidiary of Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Japan and is inter alia manufacturing CBR 250 R, a motor cycle.  The 1^st opposite party is the authorised dealer of the 2^nd opposite party, for sale of the products manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and provides after sales service.  The two wheelers manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party are world class two wheelers, with 100% technological support from Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Japan.  Before despatch to the selling dealers, every vehicle passes through a strict vehicle quality controls and checkups in the factory of the 2^nd opposite party. As such possibility of selling a defective vehicle by the 2^nd opposite party does not arise at all.  Hence, sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         6.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant along with proof affidavit, 7 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.  On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavit 7 documents were filed and the were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7. 

 

        7.  The District Forum, on analyzing the materials placed on record, allowed the complaint.  The 1^st opposite party filed CMP No.20/2013 to cross examine the expert but the same was dismissed by the District Forum.  Hence, Revision Petition No.45/13 was filed by the 1^st opposite party before the State Commission and the same was allowed.  Thereafter, when the expert appeared before the District Forum, the opposite parties did not appear and had not utilized the opportunity to cross examine the expert.  Therefore, it leads to a presumption that they have admitted the contents of the expert opinion, in Ex.A7.  Thus allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,47,689/- being the cost of the vehicle, with 9% interest, by taking the old vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint. 

 

        8.   Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum             F.A. No.371 of 2014 has been filed by the opposite parties.   Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum, F.A.No.129 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant. 

 

        9.  Keeping in mind the submissions made by the counsel for the complainant, we have carefully gone through the material available on record.  There is no representation for the opposite parties. 

 

        10.  It is the specific allegation of the complainant that he had purchased the two wheeler CBR 250R Honda Motor cycle for a sum of Rs.1,63,569/- from the opposite parties on 30.07.2011 at about 5 pm.  Within 4 days, the engine created continuous noise.  Therefore, on 06.08.2011, he handed over the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party for repair.  When he made a visit to the service centre, he was shocked to see that the entire engine was dismantled by the opposite parties.  But, it is the contention of the opposite parties that without dismantling the vehicle, the problem pointed out by the complainant could not be rectified.  Be that it may, even as admitted by the opposite parties, within 4 days from the date of purchase , the vehicle has been dismantled.  It gives a clear presumption that the vehicle delivered to the complainant is not a quality one.  As observed by the District Forum, though an expert was examined by the complainant, the opposite parties have not chosen to cross examine him.  In the expert report, Ex.A7, it has been clearly stated that the engine requires total re-built with various new parts because the engine performance and noise is very bad.  The said document was not challenged by the opposite parties or the expert was cross examined.  Therefore, by accepting the expert evidence, the District Forum has allowed the complaint and has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service, in which we do not find any infirmity.  There is no valid reason to make interference in the order passed by the District Forum. 

 

        11.  Therefore, this Commission has no option except to dismiss the appeal filed by the opposite parties in F.A.No.371 of 2014 and hence the same is dismissed.  At the same time, we do not find any valid reason to enhance the compensation awarded by the District Forum.  Hence, F.A. No.129 of 2015 filed by the complainant is also dismissed.  Consequently, the order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur in C.C. No.40 of 2011 is confirmed.

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                 R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/June/2022