Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/289/2019

Sunil Rawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Cars India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

B.B Bagga Adv., V.K. Diwan Adv. & Sakshi Doda Adv.

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	289 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	07.05.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	01.02.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Rawat aged about 58 years, s/o Sh.Jagdish Prakash Rawat, R/o House No.781, Street No.11, Gandhi Colony, Muzzafar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 251001 through attorney Vijay Rawat, aged about 25 years s/o Sh.Sunil Rawat, R/o House NO.2357-a, Block 35, Housing Board Flats, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Honda Cars India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201306

2]  Platinum Honda c/o SJS Auto Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi road, Partapur, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 250103

3]  Courtesy Honda, C/o Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002

4]  Harmony Honda, C/o Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh 160002

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Sh.V.K.Diwan, Cunsel for the complainant

Sh.Karan Nehra, Counsel for OP No.1

None for OP No.2.

Sh.Aftab Singh Khaira, Counsel for OP No.3.

Sh.Prabhjot, Adv. proxy for Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for Op No.4.

 

 

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

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that the complainant purchased Honda City Car from OP No.2 on 29.4.2016 (Ann.C-1) after availing loan facility from Bank. It is stated that the said vehicle was found to have fault in steering wheel i.e. unusually heavy requiring lot of force and brakes which generates weird & loud sound when pressed, which the OP No.2 assured to rectify on first service but the same too was not rectified on first service got done on 04.11.2016 (Ann.C-3), second service on 3.5.2017 (Ann.C-4) as the complaint found that the faults of hard gear shift, braking of vehicle were persisting.  On 19.11.2017, the vehicle was taken to OP No.3, who carried out major service at the cost of the complainant and it was mentioned that steering of the vehicle was hard and vehicle was giving low average, but despite that service, the said problem still persisted (Ann.C-5 & C-6).  Thereafter, the vehicle was taken to OP NO.4 on 9.3.2018 and their engineers noticed the persisting noise in the brakes, hard gear shifting, rear door rubber problem and carried out the service but after that service, the vehicle incurred further problems like noise in the AC (Ann.C-7).  It is submitted that the complainant again on 18.12.2018 and 25.12.2018 left the vehicle with OP No.2 (Ann.C-8 to C-10) for rectifying the defects but despite repeated attempts the abnormal sound in the brake system of the vehicle remain un-rectified and on 7.1.2019 while the complainant was driving the vehicle on Ambala Highway at the speed of 60 KM per hour, the brakes did not work, the gear shaft was also hard and with great difficulty, the complainant somehow saved. This was reported to the OPs on 27.1.2019 (Ann.C-11 & c-12) and thereafter the car was taken to OP No.3 on 23.2.2019, who again inspected the vehicle and noted the fault (Ann.C-13 & C-14).  The complainant took the vehicle to Op No.3 on 17.3.2019 but the official of OP No.3 fault to rectify the defect and stated that there is manufacturing defect and the rectification it their level is not feasible.  The complainant sent numerous mails to the OPs highlighting the problem in the vehicle but they did not pay any heed. It is pleaded that due to alignment fault, the complainant had to change one of the front tyre (Ann.C-15).  It is also pleaded that on 26.4.2019 the vehicle in question was inspected by the Service Engineer of OP NO.3, who expressed his inability to rectify the faults. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs with prayer to direct the OPs to refund the cost of the vehicle or its replacement with new vehicle and to pay compensation as well as litigation cost.

 

2]       After notice of the complaint, the OP No.1 has put in appearance and filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix, stated that the relationship between the answering OP i.e. Company/Manufacturer and authorized dealer/seller i.e. OP NO.2 is on principal-to-principal basis.  It is stated that the complainant got the troubled car serviced on 04.11.2016 and the invoice shows that all concerns of the complainant were taken into consideration, duly looked into and steering wheel problem was rectified by lubricants (Ann.C-3).  It is submitted that the complainant went to OP No.2 for a second servicing on 03.05.2017 and the service engineers of OP NO.2 looked into the problems of complainant about stiffness of gear along with other problems and rectified them.  It is also submitted that the Service Engineers of Op No.3 performed a major service of the vehicle on 19.11.2017 (Ann.C-5). It is pleaded that the parts like tyre, brake shoes, engine oil, air filters, oil filters, body rubbing and pain touchups etc. are prone to wear and tear with use, thus need to be changed after some period of time.  It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Denying other allegations, the OP NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The OP No.2 in its written version stated that the vehicle in question bearing Regd.No.UP-12AL-7799 was purchased from OP No.1 at Muzaffarnagar (UP) and it was serviced by the answering OP on 1.6.2016, 8.6.2016 and 9.8.2016.  It is stated that noting of defects on service card does not prove that the same are manufacturing defects within the purview of warrantee conditions.  It is stated that the service with OP No.3 does not affect the other merits of the case because it was intentional first service at Chandigarh in an effort to evolve jurisdiction of this Commission. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It is pleaded that at any rate, it is the matter between the complainant and OP No.1, in case the later is accepting the liability a prayed for, and it has not concerned with answering OP.  Pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

 

4]       The OP No.3/Courtesy Honda Lally Automobiles also filed written version stating that the vehicle in question was purchased on 29.4.2016 from OP No.2 and the grievance was first address from the very beginning of its purchase to the manufacturer and the dealer from where the vehicle was purchased.  It is sated that when the vehicle was received to the answering OP for its inspection, the Area Field Manager inspected the vehicle and found that the vehicle inspected on 26.04.2019, the noise in the vehicle was operation noise and further joint road test with the other vehicle of same variant was conducted by the dealership and the noise observed was operation noise meaning that there was no abnormality of noise as compared to other vehicles of the same variant and as per the manufacturer specification norms of the vehicle and further mentioned that the operation of noise shall not impact the performance of the vehicle in any manner (Ann.OP-3/1). It is also stated that the entire correspondence is with the manufacturer and the emails are the copies forwarded to the answering OP.  It is further stated that the answering OP dealership has been used for checking of the vehicle under the observation of Area Field Manager of the manufacturer, therefore, no deficiency in service can be accrued against answering OP. It is submitted that the complainant has not put any specification regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle about abnormality in the vehicle with expert opinion. Lastly, it is prayed that the complaint qua answering OP be dismissed.

 

5]       The OP No.4 has also put in appearance and filed its written version stating that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the answering OP No.4. It is stated that the complaint would show that there are no allegations made out against OP No.4 and that the OP No.4 has been unnecessarily made party to the present complaint, hence deserves dismissal against OP No.4.  It is submitted that the vehicle has been attended under the conditions of warranty wherever applicable to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It is also submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is also stated that there is no act on the part of OP No.4, which may have caused loss or harassment to the complainant.

 

6]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP No.1 to 4 respectively as made in their written versions.

 

7]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

8]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the entire record including written arguments. 

 

9]       In the present case, the complainant has alleged that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.  A Report vide Memo No.PEC/MED/2748, dated 28^th Sept., 2022 has also been received, in the present complaint, from Mechanical Engineering Department, Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh wherein it has been mentioned that “After going through the material available on record and inspection, the committee is of the opinion that the vehicle in question is having the problems since the purchase of the vehicle.  The service provider was not able to rectify it completely.  So the same may be attributed to a manufacturing defect.”. 

10]      It is observed that such a report cannot be relied upon as the committee has not specifically mentioned that what type/kind of manufacturing defect is in the vehicle in question. It is just a vague report as the committee has not been able to specify the alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The committee has written that the same may be attributed to a manufacturing defect, but not given complete report that what manufacturing defect is in the vehicle and how they have ascertained that it is a manufacturing defect. The report is not a speaking report to elaborate as to how it can be conclusively determined that the car in question is having manufacturing defect nor mentioned the tests ran on the car with relevant date and its reasoning. Further they have not given any details regarding the inspection of the vehicle determining the defects in the vehicle and its causes.  Further, this report is given without giving notice to the OPs and provide them an opportunity to be present there and take objections regarding inspection of the vehicle. Therefore, this report cannot be relied upon. Moreover, it seems that this report has been given only to favour the complaint in this complaint without any specific & scientific reasoning for the same. 

11]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed being without merit. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

12]     The pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.        

Announced

01.02.2024                                                                    Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER