Date of filing: 16.12.2020
Date of disposal: 28.02.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA (Inter), B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.29/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
Mr.Arnoldo Jenkins,
S/o.Gnanaprakasam,
No.8/322, Kalaigar Karunanithi Salai,
5th Cross Street, Santhosapuram, Chennai.
Now residing at 18/3A1, Valiavillai,
Kallukootam, Kanyakumari District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Regional Manager,
Honda Car India Limited,
Technical Support Centre,
Old No.26, New No.46, Opp ICICI Bank,
Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
2.M/s.Captial Honda,
Rep. by its Manager,
Aadit Auto Company Private Limited,
No.49, 130, 131, Perungudi Industrial Estate,
Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. ......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.M.Aloysius Raja Pragash, Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : M/s.Kamala Kumar Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : Exparte.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 21.02.2023 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in repair works done by the opposite parties in the complainant’s vehicle along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to repaint the entire body and replace the audio system of the four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 14 P 2427 Honda WRV Diesel and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.
Summary of the facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he purchased a four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 14 P 2427 Honda WRV Diesel on 22.02.2018 from the 1st opposite party. The vehicle was covered by warranty for a period of five years, commencing from the date of purchase. Vehicle was hit by a two wheeler on the rear side and hence the car was handed over to the opposite party for repairs on 06.04.2019. The 2nd opposite party carried out the repairs and painted the rear side of the vehicle and delivered it to the complainant. After taking delivery he noticed that the original colour in the body of the vehicle and the painted portion of the vehicle was mismatched. When the same was informed the opposite parties requested the complainant to send the vehicle for rectifying the mistakes. The vehicle was again handed over to the opposite parties on 22.12.2019 but the 2nd opposite party failed and neglected to discharge the duty with due care and caution. Again the same problem persisted and the vehicle’s painted colour was mismatched with the original colour. In the month of January 2020, the audio system got repaired and a complaint was lodged. On receipt of the complaint, the opposite party came and checked the audio system and found that there was a manufacturing defect which could not be repaired and the opposite parties assured to replace the audio system within 15 days but till date no action was taken by them. Hence the complainant sent legal a notice on 15.10.2020. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to repaint the entire body and audio system of the four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 14 P 2427 Honda WRV Diesel and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-
The 2ndopposite party filed version disputing the allegations contending interalia that the complainant had visited their service centre on 06.04.2019 with complaints of his car as it was hit by a two wheeler on the left hand side rear door. Against reimbursement by the vehicle insurer the 2nd opposite party had repaired the Dicky door, LHS quarter panel repaired and the LHS rear door skin. The complainant had borne the expenses of repair of the LHS door rear door and LHS rear bumper Granish as the same was not covered by insurance. Since the vehicle was almost 14 months old, the service engineer of the opposite party had taken effort to match the new paint work with the existing old one, which had already lost its sheen and glow due to exposure to elements. As always in vogue, the new paint job on the LHS rear door was made sure that it matched with the existing old paint on the LHS of the vehicle. The complainant had inspected the vehicle and taken delivery of the same on 13.04.2019 without any demur. Complainant again visited the opposite party’s service station on 28.08.2019 for tinkering and painting of the RHS rear door. Thereafter the complainant had brought the vehicle to the service station on 11.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 but had never any complaint about the paint mismatch. Again the complainant had visited the opposite party’s service station on 17.12.2019 complaining about mismatch between the RHS rear door and LHS front door. Despite the opposite party’s recommendation that the RHS new paint work cannot be matched to the old paint on the LHS front door, since the complainant insisted upon a re-paint the vehicle was taken in repainted and delivered to the complainant on 18.12.2019. On 03.01.2020 the complainant had visited the service station, whereupon the front bumper LHS fog lamp was replaced and the Air Conditioner auto switch was repaired. It was pertinent to mention that the complainant did not raise any complaint with regard to paint mismatch during the said visit. But regrettably, the complainant revisited the opposite party’s service station on 05.02.2020 and complained about the paint mismatch between RHS rear door and RHS rear door quarter panel. The opposite party had returned the vehicle to the complainant on 07.02.2020 after repainting and the complainant had taken the vehicle after satisfying with the job. The complainant had visited the opposite party’s service station on 29.11.2019 complaining about the touch sensor of the AVN system was not responding. Since the AVN system was covered by warranty the 2nd opposite party had raised a warranty claim with Honda the Vendor. But due to COVID 19 pandemic, the vendor was unable to deliver the AVN system. New replacement was received by the Nagercoil Dealer and the same was installed in the complainant’s vehicle on 06.03.2021. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On the side of 2nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 was marked on their side. Though the 1st opposite party filed Vakalath they did not appear to file written version and he was called absent and set exparte on 03.08.2022 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the period of statue.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the allegations made by the complainant with regard to the repair works done by the opposite parties for the complainant’s vehicle has been successfully proved by him by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of complainant the following documents were filed in proof of complaint allegations;
Tax Invoice for purchase of car dated 17.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
RC Book was marked as Ex.A2;
Email correspondence between the parties was marked as Ex.A3;
Legal notice of the complainant dated 15.10.2020 was marked as Ex.A4;
Reply notice of the opposite party dated 10.11.2020 was marked as Ex.A5;
On the side of 2nd opposite party the following documents were filed in support of the contentions;
Authorization letter dated 12.05.2022 was marked as Ex.B1
Vehicle history was marked as Ex.B2;
Email correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties were marked as Ex.B3 & Ex.B4;
The complainant filed written arguments with endorsement that the same may treated as oral arguments. On the side of opposite parties inspite of sufficient opportunities the 2nd opposite party did not appear to adduce oral arguments and hence this commission decided to consider the written arguments filed by them as oral arguments to decide the complaint on merits.
The crux of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle Honda WRC Diesel bearing Registration No.TN 14 P 2427 on 22.02.2018 from the 1st opposite party with five-years warranty. As the car met with a small accident it was handed over to the opposite parties for repair works. However, after taking delivery of the vehicle it is noticed that the original colour in the body of the vehicle and the painted portion was entirely different and mismatched. It was again handed over the 2nd opposite party but again the same problem persisted. Further the audio system was found to have manufacturing defects and the complainant wanted replacement of the same. However, the opposite parties did not show any interest. There is no reasons forthcoming from the opposite parties for the delay in replacing the audio system. The complainant did not take out any service from the Nagercoil dealer as mentioned by the 2nd opposite party in his version. Thus the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
On the side of 2nd opposite party it is submitted that for the repair of the vehicle the complainant had borne the expenses of repair of the LHS rear door and LHS rear bumper garnish as the same were not covered under insurance. As the vehicle was 14 months old the service engineer took great effort to match the new paint work with the existing old one which had lost its glow. Thereafter the complainant visited on 28.08.2019, 11.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 but never raised any issue as to mismatch. With regard to AVN system as the same was covered under warranty but as it was not avabilable they could not supply it immediately. However, the same was replaced through the Nagercoil dealer and the same was installed in the complainant‘s vehicle on 06.03.2021. Thus it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
On perusal of the material evidence and pleadings submitted by the parties we could infer that vide Ex.A1 the vehicle Honda WRC Diesel bearing Registration No.TN 14 P 2427 was purchased from the 1st opposite party for a total sum of Rs.9,99,901/-. Further via Ex.A3 the email communication between the complainant and the opposite parties 16.09.2020 it is seen that the opposite parties had apologized for the discomfort and difficulty faced by the complainant and they also requested the complainant to spare the vehicle for carrying out the repairs. Further the audio system got repaired from the month of January 2020 which is evident from the email communications. Though it is submitted by the opposite parties that they had painted only in par with the existing paint and the AVN system was replaced no proof was submitted by them. Further we could cull out nothing from the email transactions that the opposite parties had done the repairs and replaced the AVN system to the satisfaction of the complainant. No document was produced by opposite parties to show that the repairs were done properly and that the complainant got satisfied before taking delivery of the vehicle. In such circumstance when the vehicle was within the warranty period it is the duty of the opposite parties to carry out the repairs and to replace the parts appropriately. Failing to do so amounts to deficiency in service. Though it is stated that the AVN system has been replaced the same was not affirmed by the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant holding that the complainant was successful in proving the allegations against the opposite parties.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service with regard to the repair works done we direct the opposite parties to repaint the entire body of Honda WRV Diesel four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 14 P 2427 within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant from January 2020 to till this date by driving the complainant several times to workshop and to the Forum we award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to the complainant. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them jointly and severely
a) To repaint the entire body of Honda WRV Diesel four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN. 14 P 2427 if not done within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To replace the audio system of Honda WRV Diesel four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN. 14 P 2427 within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
d) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 17.02.2018 Tax invoice for purchase of car. Xerox
Ex.A2 ............... RC Book. Xerox
Ex.A3 ............ Email correspondence Xerox
Ex.A4 15.10.2020 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A5 10.11.2020 Reply notice of the oppostie party. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 2nd opposite party:-
Ex.B1 12.05.2022 Authorization letter. Xerox
Ex.B2 ............ Vehicle History. Xerox
Ex.B3 ............ Email correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.B4 ............... Email correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties. Xerox
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
