Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/259/2015

Darshan Aulakh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Car India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Singla, Adv.

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	259 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	09.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2016

 

Darshan Aulakh son of Sh. Chanchal Singh Aulakh, resident of House No.589, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.

.…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]     Honda Car India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.

2]     Joshi Automotive Private Limited, through its President and CEO, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Arun Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate and Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

Appeal No.	:	261 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	13.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2016

 

Honda Car India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, U.P.

.…Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1]     Darshan Aulakh son of Sh. Chanchal Singh Aulakh, resident of House No.589, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2]     Joshi Automotive Private Limited, through its President and CEO, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Arun Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate and Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

Appeal No.	:	297 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	09.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2016

 

Joshi Automotive Private Limited, through its President and CEO, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

.…Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

1]     Darshan Aulakh S/o Sh. Chanchal Singh Aulakh, R/o H. No.589, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2]     Honda Car India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate and Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Arun Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              Vide this common order, we propose to dispose the aforesaid three appeals bearing Nos.259 of 2015 filed by the complainant (Sh. Darshan Aulakh), 261 of 2015 filed by Opposite Party No.1 (Honda Car India Limited) and 297 of 2015 filed by Opposite Party No.2 (Joshi Automotive Pvt. Ltd.) against the order dated 07.08.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.285 of 2013 was allowed and the Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed as under:-

“14]       In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant on the score with regard to the touching of the tyres inside the mudguards and the issue of faulty indicator switch only. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

[a] To pay a consolidated compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[b] To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the compensation amount Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.”

2.             The facts in brief are that  the complainant purchased a Honda Amaze Car Model Type Amaze 1.5 SMT (I-DTEC) (Diesel Model) from Opposite Party No.2, an authorised dealer of Opposite Party No.1, on 19.4.2013 for Rs.6,75,201/- (Ex-showroom price) vide Annexure C-1 and accordingly, sale certificate and Form No.22 were also issued (Annexures C-2 &       C-3).  Opposite Party No.2 also issued invoice for Rs.3000/- as logistic charges (Annexure C-4).  The vehicle was also got insured.  At the time of purchase of the car, in question, the Opposite Parties informed the complainant that it was having mileage of 25.8 KM per litre (Annexure C-5) being claimed by the Company.  It is stated that the car was only giving an average of 14.3 KM per liter, as per the meter, even after having first service of the car (Annexure C-6).  The complainant made a complaint with the Opposite Parties with regard to low mileage of the car but still the problem was not solved. It was stated that the complainant is well renowned personality as he is an actor in Punjabi Movies and was not having time to wait for whole day to get the said problem in the car resolved.  As per the complainant, when three people sat in the back seat of the car, the tyre of the car touched the Mudguard, the indicators were manual and when the car was running, the voice of the engine was very loud.  Despite checking the car, the problems highlighted by the complainant, were not resolved by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.             When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking various reliefs including replacement of car.

4.             Opposite Party No.1, in its written version admitted the sale of the vehicle in question.  It was stated that the mileage of the car had been claimed by the company based on the test conducted by ARAI certified government agency, which approved the specification of the car (Annexure OP-1/D).  It was further stated that neither the vehicle was suffering from any defect nor there was any problem with respect to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.  It was further stated that the cause of low mileage was due to fitment of non-recommended alloy wheels which were contributing to low mileage performance of the car (Annexure OP-1/B Colly.) and this fact was also informed to the customer vide mail dated 13.6.2013 (Annexure OP-1/C).  It was further stated that the mileage obtained by users, varied due to indefinite variables such as driving habits, driving speed, gear change, acceleration, road and traffic condition, fuel quality, average journey length, maintenance practices, loading pattern, ambient conditions etc.  It was further stated that mileage is subject to ideal specific   condition being achieved (Annexure OP-1/A).  It was further stated that Honda Amaze was tested and approved product, which during one of the mandatory emission tested by government authorities had performed 25.8 km/lt. in standard conditions.  It was further stated that the allegations of manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle, such as engine noise at high speed and mudguards touching the rear tyres when 3 people sat on the back seat, could not to be taken as gospel truth on the mere statement of the complainant, but were required to be proved through credible documentary evidence. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             Opposite Party No.2, in its written version took the same pleas as had been taken by Opposite Party No.1 in its reply. However, it was stated that during inspection of the subject car as well as joint road test, it showed average of 25 KM (Ann.R-2). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.             However, Opposite Party No.3 (Jaswinder Singh, Manager Service c/o Harmony Honda c/o Joshi Automotive Private Limited), was deleted from the array of Opposite Parties vide order dated 11.7.2013.

7.             The complainant filed rejoinder wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statements of the Opposite Parties.

8.          The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

9.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

10.           Feeling aggrieved, the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 have filed the present appeals.

11.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

12.           The core question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the complainant (appellant in Appeal No.259 of 2015) is entitled to any relief qua alleged lesser mileage of the car, in question. The case of the complainant was that the Opposite Parties claimed that car will give mileage of 25.8 KM per litre of diesel whereas his car was giving mileage of only 14.3 KM per litre. During proceedings before the Forum, the matter was referred to the Panjab Engineering College, University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, where it was tested/checked by the Expert Committee and as per their report dated 14.11.2014 (Mark-X), the vehicle, in question, was test-driven for 55.1 KMs inside and outside the city with AC on and it gave the mileage of 18.61 km per litre. During   inspection and test drive, Sh. Darshan Aulakh (appellant), Sh. Jaswinder Singh, AGM, Joshi Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Abhinav Trivedi, Area Manager, Honda Car India Ltd. were also present. During proceedings in Appeal bearing No.259 of 2015, to settle this controversy, vide this Commission order dated 11.12.2015, respondents/Opposite Parties were directed to get the mileage of the car, in question, rechecked by fixing original rims with the car and get the mileage checked/tested by the Committee of Experts of Punjab Engineering College, Sector 12, Chandigarh. Report dated 14.01.2016 from Mechanical Engineering Department, PEC University of Tech., Chandigarh was received, as per which, the vehicle, in question, was test driven for 42.7 KMs inside and outside the city with AC on and it gave mileage of 19.23 KM per liter of diesel, whereas the indicator/meter installed on the dash board of the vehicle was showing the mileage of 20.4 KMs per litre of diesel. Thus, as per both the reports of Expert Committees, the mileage during test drive was found to be substantially higher viz. 18.61 KM and 19.23 KM per litre as against the mileage of 14.3 KM per litre as alleged by the complainant.

13.           Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was not got serviced properly at the authorized service centre as duly provided in the owners manual, which is supplied to the customer at the time of purchase and the last service was done on 25.9.2013, which was one of the reasons that the vehicle was not giving the appropriate mileage. He submitted that for better fuel economy, the vehicle was required to be properly maintained as per specified manual schedule. The Counsel objected to the report of PEC stating that PEC was not the appropriate laboratory as defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Act and that the vehicle was not test driven by an expert who is competent to test drive the vehicle under standard conditions. Placing The Counsel stated that only Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) was the proper expert agency to ascertain, whether there was any deficiency in the mileage of the car, in question. He also placed reliance on Annexures OP-1/C and OP-1/D and submitted that car was capable to perform a mileage of 25.8 KMs per litre. He further submitted that in Em Pee Motors Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bamal & Anr., II (2015) CPJ 32 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that any claim with regard to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle, which has been sourced from a third party, cannot be made applicable to the manufacturer of the vehicle  and a complaint on such score is not maintainable nor any case of deficiency in service is made out against the manufacturer. Paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment, being relevant are extracted hereunder:-

“7.         In our opinion, if the manufacturer of a vehicle claims a particular mileage based upon the result of a test conducted by a third party such as ARAI which is a body under the aegis of the Government of India, it cannot be said to have published    false   information   or    made    a    false            

                                                                 

 

representation with respect to the fuel economy of the vehicle. The very use of the word “falsely” in clause I of Section 2(r)(1) of the act clearly indicates that the representation which is impugned before a consumer forum should be false to the knowledge of the person by whom it is made. If a person bonafidely believes upon the report submitted by a third party such as ARAI and represents accordingly to the members of the public, it cannot be accused of having made a false representation. As far as clause VII of the aforesaid provision is concerned that in our view may not be strictly applicable since the said clause applies only to a warranty or a guarantee given by the manufacturer/seller of the vehicle. In any case, even if the mileage of a vehicle under ideal conditions is taken as a warranty or guarantee of the performance of the vehicle, it cannot be said that it was not based on adequate or proper test when the manufactures bases the said warranty or guarantee on the report taken from a third party such as ARAI which before submitting its report subjects the vehicle to test in terms of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules.

8.         As regards the report given by the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, a perusal of the report clearly shows that the vehicle was driven in the city, before the said report came to be given. There is nothing in the report to even suggest that the vehicle was driven under the same controlled conditions under which it was tested by ARAI. There is no information available to us as regards the comparative condition of the road on which the vehicle was driven by ARAI vis-à-vis the condition on which the vehicle was driven by PEC. We have no information (i) as regards comparative qualification, experience and driving habits of the persons who drover the vehicle, (ii) as regards the traffic conditions which were available at the time the vehicle was driven at Chandigarh vis-à-vis the traffic conditions under which the vehicle was driven by ARAI, (iii) as regards the quality of the fuel which was used by PEC Chandigarh vis-à-vis the quality of the fuel used by ARAI and (iv) as regards the load which the vehicle carried when it was driven by the experts of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. More importantly, the vehicle came to be driven by the experts of Punjab Engineering College sometime in July 2013 whereas it was purchased by the complainant in March 2011. Thus, the vehicle had already been used for about two and half years before it was tested by the experts of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. It can hardly be disputed that with the passage of time, and due to use of the vehicle, the vehicle may not give the same mileage as is given when it is absolutely new. The mileage given by a vehicle is the result of a number of factors including (a) the road on which the vehicle is driven, (b) the traffic on the road at the time it is driven, (c) the quality of the fuel used in the vehicle, (d) the speed at which the vehicle is driven, (e) the number of times brake is applied to stop the vehicle, (f) load carried in the vehicle, (g) air pressure in the tyres/tubes, (h) condition of the tyres and (i) the overall condition of the vehicle, etc.. Therefore, a vehicle which gives a particular mileage under standard test conditions will never be able to deliver the same mileage when it is driven on a city road and that too, under conditions different from the conditions under which it was test driven.”

Clearly the mileage of the vehicle per litre, whether it is petrol or diesel, depends upon various factors like driving habits of a driver, variable tyre pressure, road conditions, quality of fuel, distance travelled and maintenance of the vehicle and all these factors contribute to the mileage factor. The version of the complainant that his car was giving mileage of 14.3 KM per litre of diesel has been proved wrong twice as per reports of Panjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, discussed above, when the mileage was found to be 18.61 KM and 19.23 KM per litre of diesel respectively. No cogent evidence to the effect that there has been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in question, has come on record. Thus, in view of above and the law settled in Em Pee Motors Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bamal & Anr.’s case (supra), the complainant, in our considered opinion, is not entitled to any relief on this count, much less replacement of the car in question.

14.           As regards grievance of the complainant that the Forum did not decide and award amount of Rs.22,000/- paid by the complainant to the PEC University, no doubt the Forum failed to return any finding qua this issue but considering the fact that the Opposite Parties have not been found deficient in regard to lesser mileage, coupled with the fact that during pendency of appeal, when the PEC University was requested to appoint expert committee to check the mileage, Opposite Party No.1 was directed to pay the fee, the complainant is not held entitled to the grant of fee paid to PEC, University of Technology.

15.           Coming to the grievance of the complainant regarding touching of the rear tyres inside the mudguards on account of size of tyres and rims and faulty indicator assembly, the Forum in Para 11 of its order, after taking note of the photographs Annexure A (Colly.) filed alongwith the objections to the Expert Report, by the Opposite Parties, recorded that the complainant had changed the original tyres of the size 175/65 R14 with those of 195/55 R15. The Opposite Parties claimed that bigger tyre size contributed towards lower fuel average as experienced by the complainant and also reduced the gap between the tyre and the mudguards of the vehicle, thus causing the rear tyres to touch inside the mudguards. The Forum further in Para 12 of the order rightly held that there were other contributory factors, which resulted in touching of tyres inside the mudguards. In this view of the matter, the Forum rightly held that if the complainant had changed all the four tyres, he should have experienced this problem with the front tyres too but he did not allege such happening with the front tyres. The Opposite Parties failed to answer as to why only rear tyres were giving such problem. They (Opposite Parties) should have inspected the vehicle thoroughly and redressed the grievance of the complainant. 

16.           As regards the issue of manual operation of the indicator assembly, the Forum in Para 13 of its order rightly observed that the Expert Committee Report fully substantiated the allegation of the complainant about the faulty indicator assembly, which did not return to usual position automatically. Since the vehicle, in question, at the time of raising this issue was within warranty period, the Opposite Parties were duty bound to rectify the defects to the entire satisfaction of the complainant but they failed to do the needful, which clearly amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The Forum, thus, righty held the Opposite Parties liable for deficiency in rendering service and allowed the complaint by awarding consolidated compensation of Rs.15,000/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, all the three appeals filed by the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 deserve to be dismissed.

 

17.           No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

18.           For the reasons recorded above, all the appeal bearing No.259 of 2015, 261 of 2015 and 297 of 2015 filed by the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 respectively, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the Forum is upheld.

19.           Certified copy of this order be placed in other two Appeals bearing No.261 of 2015 and 297of 2015.

20.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

21.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

February 08, 2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER