BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.379 of 2021
Date of Instt. 11.11.2021
Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
Anil Kalia, aged 64 years, son of Late Dr. Guru Datt Sharma, resident of House No.3922, Mohalla Kaulsar, Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Honda Cars India Ltd., Head Office at Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP-201306.
2. Prestige Honda, M/s Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd., G. T. Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Anand Pandit, Adv. & Sh. Kunwar Sood, Adv. Counsels for Complainant.
Sh. M. K. Jain, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Karan Seth, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is the owner of a Honda City Car, model VX-Ivtec, year 2018, bearing registration no.PB 08 EC 1078. This car has been manufactured by OP No.1 and sold by its sale agency, 'Prestige Honda', which is OP No.2 and is also the authorized service and repairs workshop for all Honda vehicles manufactured and sold by OP No.1. This car of complainant is originally fitted with an AVN (Audio Video Navigation) system, also known as Infotainment System which provides a number of features like music, navigation, phone etc. In fact, the provision of this particular feature, i.e. the AVN system, was one of the main reasons and attraction for complainant for purchasing this particular model of Honda City car. This car has been sold by OPs with a manufacturer's warranty extending up to 3 years, for replacement of any defective parts. The date of purchase of this car was on or about 24 August, 2018; so the original manufacturer's warranty was in force up to 24 August, 2021. The complainant has purchased even the extended warranty for further two years from opposite parties, in respect of this car. As such, the warranty period is extending up to 24 August, 2023. In June, 2021, the above stated AVN system of this car went out of order, and stopped working. Complainant took the car to the workshop of OP No.2. The mechanics of OP No.2 checked the system, and recommended for its replacement. Since the car was still within its original manufacturer's warranty, as submitted in para no.3 above, the OP No.2 sent a request/email to OP No.1 for replacing the AVN system in complainant's car. The said request was accepted by OP No.1 vide a token no. B-5310 dated 16th of June, 2021, as conveyed by OP No.2 to the complainant. A printout of the screenshot of the laptop screen was provided by OP No.2 to complainant. At the time of lodging the claim for replacement of AVN system, it was promised by OPs that it would be replaced within 15 days. However, it was not done till mid October, 2021. Though complainant, in the meanwhile, paid repeated visits to the OP No.2 and also sent numerous emails and made calls to the customer care no. of OP No.1, but they did not do the needful for almost 4 months. On 12th of October, 2021, complainant was informed by OP No.2 to bring the car to its workshop for replacement/repair of the AVN system which the complainant did. In the evening, the car was delivered back to complainant by OP No.2 claiming to have replaced the defective AVN system, with the assurance that the system would now work perfectly. To utter dismay of complainant, the replaced AVN system also started malfunctioning within one day, and developed the following problems in its Phone App:-
(i) the app started crashing, showing "Force Stop" on the screen.
(ii) the favourites list in it is repeatedly going out of sync; it is showing some entries which have not been entered in the favourites list; this is happening even after deleting unwanted entries. This is happening repeatedly, even after rebooting the system using "Factory Reset" option.
(iii) Sometimes, the phone directory does not show any entry at all.
(iv) Sometimes in a call, the sound output at the other end is very bad and unintelligible.
Complainant properly brought these defects into the notice of opposite parties by way of telephone calls and emails to OPs. On 21 October, 2021, complainant was again asked by OP No.2 to bring his car for replacement of AVN system against the originally allotted token no.B-5310. The car was delivered back to complainant by OP No.2, claiming to have replaced the AVN system, and with categorical assurance that the replaced system would work perfectly. Again to the utter disappointment of complainant, this system also developed the same snags within one day which were promptly brought into the notice of OPs. In spite of repeated calls and emails, the OPs have not rectified these faults and/or replaced the yet again defective AVN system. On the other hand, they claim that AVN system is working properly. However, the defects do exist, and are apparent on inspection of the system. The navigation function of the AVN system is also not working. The OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the still defective AVN system in the complainant’s car with a properly working system supplied by a different vendor or alternatively pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.75,000/- as the price of the new AVN system of a reputed brand, and Rs.50,000/- as damages and compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present matter relates to Honda City motor car bearing Registration No.PB-08-EC-1078, which was purchased on 24.08.2018 and registered with RTA, Jalandhar, Punjab. It is further averred that the complainant alleges that sometime in June, 2021, the AVN System became defective and was not working. The Complainant readily admits that the mechanics of the OP No.2 (Dealership) examined the system and suggested that it be replaced. Therefore, it can be seen that the dealership acted in terms of the obligations arising under the terms of the warranty document provided to the Complainant at the time of purchase of the Subject Vehicle. The only obligation of the OP No.2 under the warranty terms and conditions is to repair or replace defective components. It is further averred that as per information provided by the dealership, the Complainant had reported the Subject Vehicle with the issue of AVN having delayed response/freezing/hanging etc. The dealership had examined the AVN system and had agreed to replace the same as a goodwill gesture and had thereafter, tested the system and found the same to be working as required. However, the Complainant was not satisfied and had repeatedly sought for AVN replacement from another vendor. It is submitted that the dealership had examined the matter and had found that the issue was not with the AVN System itself but with the Phone App, which was using a non-compatible blue-tooth system which resulted in the problems as highlighted hereinabove. It is submitted therefore, that the Complainant is required to fix the Phone App, and get a compatible blue-tooth system, for the AVN system, rather than raising false and frivolous allegations against the OP No.1. The OP No.1 can only be impleaded if there is a defect in the manufacturing of the Subject Vehicle, and not defect in the AVN system. In the present case, the Complainant is not able to point out any defects in the manufacturing of the Subject Vehicle, hence OP No.1 is required to be deleted from the array of parties before this Commission. It is further averred that the present Complaint is rife with assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, and frivolous averments and allegations which are not borne out from the facts of the case. It is stated that the present Complaint which has been preferred before this Commission is merely a by-product of the Complainant's over-active imagination and is not borne out from any expert testimony whatsoever. Moreover, the Complainant has not succeeded in discharging the burden of proof that there was indeed a manufacturing/technical issue with the Subject Vehicle as alleged in the Complaint under response. It is even otherwise stated for the due consideration of this Commission that apart from bald and baseless allegations, nothing substantial or concrete has been placed on record by way of evidence, to fortify the allegations that are rife throughout the Complaint. It is pertinent to highlight that the Complainant has not placed on record any literature, documentary evidences, and other supporting expert automobile testimony as mandatorily required under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On merits, the factum with regard to ownership of Honda City Car in the name of complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that the car of the complainant was fitted an AVN system with extended period of warranty upto 24 August, 2023 and it is also admitted that the complainant made a complaint for replacement of AVN system on 16.06.2021. It is also admitted that the new AVN system was installed by OP No.2 in the car of the complainant on 12.10.2021 free of cost, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by stating that the OP No.2 is neither the manufacturing co of the car and the originally fitted AVN (Audio Video Navigation) system nor there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on part of OP No.2. The OP No.1 is the manufacturing company which had sold the car along with originally fitted system which is manufactured by Premium Sound Solution Pvt. Ltd. Infact the car model 2018 bearing no.PB 08 EC 1078 was brought by complainant to OP No.2 on 12.06.2021 when the car had already run 8266 kms and was registered in the name of its previous owner as per record of OP No.2. It was complained by the complainant at that time that AVN system originally fitted in car is not working as per his requirements. The OP No.2 registered the complaint vide token no.B-5310 without any delay and forwarded the same to OP No.1 for the needful. The OP No.1 after receiving the communication from OP No.2 upon complaint of the complainant regarding AVN system sent new system to OP No.2 for the replacement and the same was replaced by OP No.2 in the car of the complainant without charging any amount and under warranty. The OP No.2 replaced the AVN system with new system immediately and without delay after receiving the same from OP No.1 on 12.10.2021. However, the complainant again expressed dissatisfaction on the working of new AVN system and then the OP No.2 again replaced the AVN system with new on 21.10.2021 although the extended warranty does not include the replacement of Audio system as per the terms and condition of extended warranty but despite of that the OP No.2 as goodwill gesture and to maintain good customer relation replaced the AVN system for second time without charging any amount. The complainant expressed satisfaction and gratitude to OP No.2 for their efficient service besides signing the satisfaction note regarding the working of AVN. Therefore, the OP No.2 is not liable to compensate and cannot be held liable for any alleged inefficiency of service or any kind of unfair trade practice. On merits, the factum with regard to ownership of Honda City Car in the name of complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that the car of the complainant was fitted an AVN system with extended period of warranty upto 24 August, 2023 and it is also admitted that the complainant made a complaint for replacement of AVN system on 16.06.2021. It is also admitted that the new AVN system was installed by OP No.2 in the car of the complainant on 12.10.2021 free of cost, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant is the owner of Honda City Car, model VX-Ivtec, year 2018 as per Ex.C-1. It is admitted that the car of the complainant was fitted with an AVN system. The extended period of warranty upto 24 August, 2023 has also not been denied. It is also admitted that the complainant made a complaint for replacement of AVN system on 16.06.2021. It is also admitted that the new AVN system was installed by the OP No.2 in the car of the complainant on 12.10.2021 free of cost. The emails Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-18 proves that the complainant had correspondence through email with the OPs regarding the defect in the AVN system and ultimately, the AVN system was replaced, but the grouse of the complainant remained as it was prior to replacement as even the new system did not work and it developed the problems in its phone app as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. Again the system was replaced on the complaint of the complainant with the new one on 21.10.2021. Even the complainant expressed his satisfaction over the job done by the OP No.2. Unfortunately, again the same did not work and the problem remained the same even with the new AVN system. The AVN system was replaced twice. As per the written statement filed by the OP No.2, the probable reason for the issue raised by the complainant was the non-compatibility of his mobile phone with the system.
8. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or any unfair trade practice by the OPs as they have already replaced the AVN system twice, but due to non-compatibility of the system with the phone, the problem occurred. It is proved that the car of the complainant was having problem and he had purchased the car by spending the money. It is the duty of the OPs to provide the services and to provide the product as per the specifications and as per the amenities and facilities which are compatible and are good for the customers. If the AVN system is not compatible, then it is duty of the OPs to provide that brand of the system, which is compatible to the phone of the complainant or any other customer. If the customer cannot enjoy the ride even after spending money, then there is no fun of purchasing the product after spending huge amount. Though, the AVN system has been replaced twice, but that should have been replaced considering the compatibility. Because of the fault occurring time and again, the complainant has suffered a lot mentally as well as physically. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and both the OPs are directed to replace the defective AVN system in the complainant’s car with a properly working system of Alpine Company, which system is allegedly compatible to the phone, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
19.03.2024 Member Member President
