Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/374/2020

Anant Berry - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harmony Honda - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	374/2020
Date of Institution	:	17.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	30.11.2023

 

                     

            

 

1.  Anil Berry aged 67 years s/o Sh.Kuldip Rai Berry r/o H.No.3312, Sector 32-D,Chandigarh

 

2.  Anant Berry aged 36 years s/o Sh.Anil Berry r/o H.No.3312, Sector 32-D,Chandigarh

                 ...  Complainants.

Versus

 

1.  Harmony Honda, Plot NO.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh -160002 through its CEO Vikram Joshi.

 

2.  Honda Cars India Ltd.,  Plot No.A, 1, Surajpur Kansa Road, Industrial Development Area, Sector 40/41, Knowledge Park III, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306 through its President and CEO Mr.Gaku Nakanishi.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Anil Berry, Representative of the complainant Sh.Ambuj Shukla, Proxy for Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP No.1 None for OP No.2

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that the complainant  is owner of the Honda City  vehicle bearing registration No.CH-01-BL-3312 and the complainant No.2(his son) handed over the said car for re-coding/reprogramming of the car keys to OP No.1 (local dealer of OP No.2 (Manufacturer)  on 10.07.2020 and except this there was no fault in the car. However, while  re-coding/reprogramming of the car keys, the representatives of the OPs damaged the music system of the car and on pointing out the issue, the service advisor namely Mr.Bhist stated that the same is not covered under the extended warranty and he also stated that the music systems  for the year 2017 Honda City Model are faulty and they have received similar complaints earlier as well and they will look into after discussion with OP No.2. Subsequently, the claim was rejected .  It  has been averred that Mr.Jaswinder Singh, GM of OP No.1 made false promises to his son to get the system repaired without any cost.  Subsequently, the complainant No.2 sent the e-mail dated 30.07.2020 to resolve the issue, followed by reminders but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to repair the music system of the car, to pay the compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon OP No.1, they appeared before this Commission and filed its written version stating that the re-coding/reprogramming of the car keys has no relevance or connection with the stereo/music system of the car and they have not damaged the same as alleged. It has further been stated that on receipt of the complaint regarding the stereo/music system of the car, it was found that the same was not covered under the warranty terms and as such the same was rightly rejected.  It has further been stated that the malfunctioning of the stereo/music system of the car existed prior to the handing over of the car for re-coding/reprogramming of the car keys.  It was stated that since the system is not covered under warranty and as such there is no question of sending the reminders. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     In its separate written version, OP No.2 has stated that the complainant nowhere raises even a single allegation qua it and the complaint is against OP No.2 only and no specific role or liability has been specifically attributed to it.  It has further been stated that there is a principal to principal relationship between the manufacturer and the authorized dealership. Denying all the allegations, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.     We have heard the representative of the complainant, Proxy Counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.     The grouse of the complainants is that the music system of the car has been damaged by the workers of OP No.1 while re-coding/reprogramming of the car keys and the same has not been repaired despite repeated requests.    On the other hand, OP No.1 has vehemently stated that they have not damaged the music system of the car as alleged. The malfunctioning of the stereo/music system of the car alleged to be existed prior to the handing over of the car for re-coding/reprogramming of the car keys.
7.     In such a situation, the burden is shifted upon the complainants to prove that the music system of the car was functioning properly while handing over the vehicle to the OP No.1 for re-coding/reprogramming of the car keys and the same was damaged by the workers of the OP No.1 but no such evidence has been led by the complainants. It is not the case of the complainants that the music system of the car is covered under warranty and the OPs have refused to repair it free of costs under the warranty terms. Thus, the complainants have failed to prove their case that there is any deficiency in service or indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
9.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
10.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 30/11/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER