Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/445/2018

Manish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Cars India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajvir Singh Sihag

13 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/445/2018
Date of Institution	:	10/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	13/01/2022

 

Manish Kumar son of Sh.Sukhchain Singh, resident of village Majri, post office Sialba, District SAS Nagar (Mohali)-140110.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Honda Cars India Ltd. Regd. Office 409, Tower-B, DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi-110025, through its Managing Director.
2. Joshi Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.67, Industrial Area Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Rajvir Singh Sihag, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Ms.Sandeep Kaur, Vice Counsel for Sh.Karan Nehra, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.       Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant had purchased a car of make “Honda City 1.5VMT(i-DTEC)” from the Opposite Party on 30.12.2016. The complainant had paid a huge amount of Rs.11,44,018/-. The copy of the invoice and sale certificate annexed as Annexure C-1. As per complaint, apart from the cost of the car he spent substantial amount of around Rs.21,500/- on the insurance of the car and further towards obtaining registration of the aforesaid car. A copy of the insurance policy and registration certificate is annexed as Annexure C-2. The relevant terms of warranty are annexed As Annexure C-3. As per complainant, in the month of August, 2017 the car started to give problem of non-ignition/non-start and there was also a strange noise coming from the engine with excessive emission of smoke from the car. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 from time to time to know the exact nature of the defect and the time required by the Opposite Party for removal of the same. However, the Opposite Party failed to give a clear response as regards to the exact nature of the defect. As per complaint, in fact at time of delivery of the car Opposite Party No.2 raised an invoice of Rs.36,809/- despite the car being covered by the warranty terms which provide that within 24 months of the purchase or 40,000/- kilometers the Opposite Party will not levy a charge to the customer for parts and labour. A copy of the invoice dated 14.09.2017 is annexed as Annexure C-4. The complainant used the car and regularly got it checked from Opposite Party No.2. However, the same again started to give trouble with respect to engine noise and excessive emission of smoke which constrained the complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2 in the month of February 2018 at the time of servicing of the car. A copy of the invoice dated 23.02.2018 is annexed as Annexure C-5. However, the problem continued to persist forcing the complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2 on different dates. A copy of the aforesaid documents is annexed as Annexure C-6 (colly). However, despite assurance of the Opposite Party and service of the car, the complainant faced same problem. This act on the part of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this present consumer complaint.

2.      Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. The main allegation of the complainant pertains to the Opposite Party No.2 Dealer who failed to repair the car of the complainant. The complainant has mishandled his car and drove it in water logging areas because of which the engine of the car got damaged. The complainant brought the car to the Opposite Party No.2 (dealer) for multiple repair work. During thorough inspection of the car, the engine of the car was found damaged and had water in it. The Opposite Party No.2 explained to the complainant that such repairs are not covered under warranty the complainant has to pay for such repairs as the same contributed to the accidental damages and hence not a manufacturing defect.  The relevant part of the owner’s manual is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-A. In such scenario since there is no manufacturing defect, on these lines, the case is sought to be defended.

3.      Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case there was no defect in the vehicle and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as such the terms of warranty if any are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint. Standard warranty terms are matter of record. As per the records maintained by Opposite Party No.2, the vehicle of the complainant has been attended to most efficiently whenever it has been reported to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 and has been repaired under the conditions of warranty wherever applicable. The car of the complainant was reported on 04.02.2017 at 1425Kms for first free service, 18.03.2017 at 5798Kms for second free service and for third service which was paid service at 10102 Kms, 16.08.2017 for general repairs at 15056Kms. Copies of the tax invoice of these reported visits is Ex.R-1(Colly). Perusal of these visits would show that complainant has nowhere reported the problem of non-ignition, non-start, strange noise at any point of time. However, perusal of these visits again would show that the vehicle was attended to most efficiently and effectively to the most satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle in question was sold subject to conditions of replace the defective parts when the answering respondents acknowledge any faulty workmanship. The warranty shall be applicable at the option of the respondents and be limited to either repair of goods supplied or the replacement of parts which the answering respondent recognizes as defective. In the present case there was no defect in the vehicle and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as such the terms of warranty if any are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint. Standard warranty terms are matter of record. Even the customer has reported for workshop for periodic maintenance service on 25.02.2019 at 44664 Kms and it was a paid service. Copy of the invoice is annexed as Exhibit R-13. Perusal of the record would show that the problem of the engine noise has been rectified and the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-

6.      It is evident from Annexure C-1 the retail invoice that the complainant paid huge amount of Rs.11,44,018/- for the purchase of the car in question. Apart from this another amount of Rs.21,500/- was also paid towards the insurance and further more amount for getting registration of the car.

7.       The sole grouse of the complainant is that despite spending of huge amount to purchase the car in question having warranty of 2 years and extended warranty of another 1 year, the complainant had to pay amount of Rs.36,809/- in month of August, 2017 for requisite repairs done by Opposite Party No.2. Not only this on many occasions again the car engine suffered the same problems in form of excessive emission of smoke, non-ignition and non-starting and a strange noise was coming from the engine and for that purpose the car was frequently got inspected by the Opposite Party No.2 on 8 numbers of occasion i.e. 28.03.2018, 11.04.2018, 24.04.2018, 28.04.2018, 02.05.2018, 18.07.2018, 02.08.2018, 17.08.2018 (which is admitted of Opposite Party No.2 in its reply). Getting harassed on the hands of the Opposite Parties the complainant sent registered complaint to Opposite Party No.2 the dealer i.e. page No.35 of the complaint dated 04.05.2018 in which the details of the faults in the car in question were apprised to the Opposite Party No.2. Getting frustrated with the adamant attitude of the Opposite Parties for not providing proper services, the complainant filed the present complaint in year 2018 that to again within the warranty period.

8.      There is no dispute regarding Opposite Party No.1 being the manufacturer and Opposite Party No.2 the dealer of the vehicle in question and the cost of the car.

9.       Per averments made, which are supported by way of affidavit alongwith documents viz. Annexure C-6 (Colly) shows repeated defects had cropped up in the vehicle in short spent of time, when once the defects was cured the similar kind of another defect cropped up, but permanent solution to these defects was not made by Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the dealer of the car and Opposite Party No.1 the manufacturer of the car.

10.      Not only this the document referred hereinbefore in the foregoing paragraph also shows registered letter was also sent to Opposite Party No.2 page No.35 of the complaint dated 04.05.2018 regarding repeated development of the defects, but no permanent solution was sorted out by Opposite Party No.1 & 2. Not only this, the complainant was charged amount of Rs.36,809/- for the requisite repairs despite being the vehicle within the warranty period.

11.      As per record of the file the vehicle was under warranty period for 2 years from the date of purchase and the defect started occurring within a few months and even present complaint was preferred on 10.09.2018 in span of 1 year 9 months. While the warranty period had expired only during the pendency of this consumer complaint. Hence, suffice it to say, defects had developed during the warranty period which were not corrected to the satisfaction of the complainant.

12.      On prayer of the complainant and after hearing the Opposite Parties, inspection of the vehicle was got done from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. The report was given by PEC Chandigarh for which amount of Rs.23,600/- was paid by the complainant himself. Dr.Sushant Samir, Professor, Professor Ankit Yadav, Assistant Professor and Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I. of Mechanical Engineering Department of Punjab Engineering College after inspection and test drive had furnished report dated 14.02.2020 which is reproduced as below:-

        On perusal of records, inspection and test drive it has been observed that there was no problem in starting of the vehicle and no strange noise from engine was heard. However, after driving around 8 Kms emission of black colour was coming out from the exhaust of the vehicle which is not desirable. The committee is of the opinion that since the engine of the vehicle has been overhauled the manufacturing defects cannot be ascertained.

13.      Perusal of the report clearly shows that experts accept the defects in the car as on driving nearly 8 Kms, only there is emission of black colour was coming out from the exhaust of the vehicle which points out defect in the engine. As per record the said problem despite more than 12 visits is still persisting. Notably, it has been pointed out by the experts that engine of the vehicle stood overhauled. We are of the opinion that the complainant spent huge amount of Rs.11,44,018/- by trusting the brand to make himself and his family comfortable and not for running from pillar to post to get after sale services within the warranty period. Pertinently additional amount of Rs.36,809/- was charged from the complainant for the necessary repairs during the warranty period. Not only this again the complainant had to spent additional amount of Rs.23,600/- to get vehicle inspected from the Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh. We are of the opinion that it was the adamant attitude of the Opposite Parties for not paying attention to the grievance of the complainant at the right time. It is carelessness of the Opposite Party which forced the complainant to indulge in present unnecessary litigation. Hence the act of Opposite Parties for non-honoring their own warranty terms & conditions proves deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.

14.      In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund sale price of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.11,44,018/- to the complainant upon return of the vehicle by him. However, no interest is being awarded on this amount as the vehicle is in the custody and control of the complainant and he used it at least for 1 year 9 months prior to the date of institution of the present consumer complaint.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/01/2022	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
Ls	Member	Member	President