O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                    Complainant has filed this complainant against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                    2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows:  Complainant had purchased a top range Honda City Car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 3^rd opposite party on 19.05.2014.  As per the printed specification sheet issued by the opposite parties, in connection with the purchase of the said car, it is clearly mentioned that the car purchased by the complainant would have 15 inch alloy wheels.  When the car was brought to the home of the complainant, it was found that the spare wheel was not alloy and it is only a standard steel wheel, which is in contravention to the sale terms agreed between the complainant and opposite parties.  Further, at no point of time opposite parties discloses that the 5^th wheel (spare wheel) would be steel with different specification from the other 4 regular wheels.  So the complainant sent an e.mail to 3^rd opposite party citing the issue with request to replace the steel wheel with an alloy wheel, but the reply was negative with untenable contentions.  So the complainant referred the matter to the 1^st opposite party.  But their reply was also negative and their advice was to purchase a spare alloy wheel by making additional payment.  According to the opposite parties, the spare wheel is only to assist in emergency and it need not be an alloy wheel and it is not mandatory to give alloy spare wheel.  If the spare wheel is of different from the other 4 wheels and if it is used along with the other alloy wheels that affects that the condition of the car.  So the contention of the opposite party is very strange and has no justification and it is the primary duty of the opposite parties to provide similar 5 wheels for the car.  So the delivery of a steel spare wheel is an unfair trade practice and the non replacement of the steel wheel with an alloy wheel is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  The above said acts of the opposite parties caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and they are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the steel wheel with an alloy wheel of the same specifications of the other wheels along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for the realization of the cost of this proceedings.

                    3. In this case all opposite parties entered appearance and opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite parties 3 and 4 filed separate versions.  Since the contentions raised by all opposite parties are similar in nature and hence we are not narrating their versions separately. 

        4. The main contentions in the versions are as follows:  According to the opposite parties, at any point of time they have not promised to give 5 alloy wheels.  The spare wheel is used only for emergency purpose and hence the spare wheel need not be an alloy wheel.  Further, the spare wheel is not mandatory as per the terms and conditions of the sale.  However, opposite parties are providing spare wheels to the customers only for maintaining a better relationship.  None of the documents provided by them shows that the spare wheel should be an alloy wheel.  The contention of the complainant in this respect is false and baseless.  Moreover the complainant had took delivery of the car after verifying and satisfying the condition of the car and the extra materials including the spare wheel supplied by the opposite parties.  Therefore and in the circumstances, the complainant’s allegation are baseless and since there is no allegation of manufacturing defect and as the opposite parties has not committed any unfair of illegal acts against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prays or the dismissal of the complaint.

                    4. Subsequent to the filing of the version of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a detailed replication in which the complainant had made a detailed reply for the version referring the contentions of the opposite party.

                    5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                    6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 and B2.  After closure of evidence, complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 filed argument notes and they were heard.

                    7. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Honda City Car from the opposite parties and as per the terms and conditions of the sale and other printed materials like user’s manual etc. issued by the opposite parties clearly shows that the 5 wheels of the said car is alloy wheels.  But despite the above, spare wheel provided is an ordinary steel wheel with different dimensions than the other 4 alloy wheels.  When it is come to the notice of the complainant he contacted the opposite parties for replacing the steel spare wheel with an alloy wheel.  But they have denied the complainant’s demand by saying the spare wheel is not mandatory and it need not be an alloy wheel and as the spare wheel is to be used only for emergency purposes and if the said spare wheel is used in any situations it will not affect the condition of the car.  But the said stand and the contentions of the opposite parties is very strange, which is an unfair trade practice and clear deficiency in service and hence they are liable to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 

                    8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 9 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.A1 to A9.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the vehicle tax invoice dated 26.04.2014 for Rs.11,06,501/- issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A2 is a copy of the 1^st page of the sales contract dated 30.01.2014 issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the copy of the specifications of the complainant’s car issued by the opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the 3^rd page of Ext.A3 showing the features of the car.  Ex.A5 is a copy of e.mail letter dated 31.05.2014 issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A6 is the reply of the 3^rd opposite party to Ext.A5 letter.  Ext.A7 is the user’s manual of the car in question issued by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A8 is a quotation dated 20.07.2014 by the Oman Marketing and Services company of Honda issued to the complainant showing that the Honda Company is giving 16 inch alloy wheels including spare wheel along with the car like the complainant’s car.  Ext.A9 is the delivery checklist issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the complainant.

                    9. On the other hand, opposite parties main contention is that it is not mandatory to give alloy spare wheel and the spare wheel is only for the purpose of emergency use and hence spare alloy wheel is not at all required.  Further, they have not offered spare alloy wheel at any point of time with the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties.  More over, many of the companies are not providing spare wheel to the customers and opposite parties gave the spare wheel only as a curtsy and for maintaining a good relationship with the customers.  It is not mandatory to give 5 wheels having the same quality including the spare wheel.  In the circumstances, they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant and hence prays for dismissing the complaint.

                    10. In order to prove the contentions of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties they have cross-examined PW1.  But they have not adduced any oral evidence, but one document marked in their favour as Ext.B1 through PW1.  Ext.B1 is the copy of the delivery checklist, which was already marked as Ext.A9.

                    11. At the same time, the authorized officer of the opposite parties 3 and 4 filed a proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination along with one document.  On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced is marked as Ext.B2, which is the authorization executed by 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties in favour of DW1. 

                    12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, it is found that the only dispute between the parties is in respect of the spare alloy wheel.  According to the complainant, opposite parties provided 4 alloy wheels and a steel wheel as spare wheel instead of 5 wheels of the same quality and nature.  Since the spare wheel is different from other wheels, the condition of the car will be affected if the spare wheel is used.  So according to the complainant, the non-delivery of the spare alloy wheel at the time of purchase and the dishonouring of his demand for the same is an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.  But according the opposite parties, the spare alloy wheel is not mandatory and there was no offer for the same at any point of time and hence they have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

                    13. But in this case, it is pertinent to note that none of the exhibits marked in evidence from both sides and the other evidences brought in by the parties does not discloses whether the spare wheel is mandatory and if it is mandatory the spare wheel should be of the same nature and quality as that of the other 4 regular wheels.  However, it is the usual practice that the manufacturer will provide 5 wheels to a car, as a car needs and requires 5 wheels.  The said 5 wheels should be of the same nature and same quality and same dimensions.  Nobody can use a car without similar wheels.  If the wheels are different it will affect the condition of the car.  So no dealer is entitled to give different wheels for a car and all such wheels including the spare wheel should be of same nature, same quality and same dimensions.  But in this case, opposite parties had given a different spare wheel.  The contention of the opposite parties is that spare wheel is not mandatory, and even if a spare wheel is provided it is not mandatory to give a similar spare wheel similar to that of the regular wheels and there is no specific offer for a similar spare wheel.  In view of the above, it is pertinent to note that either in the user’s manual or in any other documents, there is no mention about the specifications of the spare wheel.  In the absence of any specific mention of the specifications of a spare wheel it can be presumed that the spare wheel should also be a similar wheel as that of the other 4 regular wheels.  So the stand taken by the opposite parties seems to be very strange which cannot be justified.  At the same time, there is no justification in giving a spare steel wheel instead of an alloy wheel for a vehicle purchased by paying more than 11 lakhs to the opposite parties.  Therefore, the complainant’s claim for the spare alloy wheel is genuine and can be allowed as the act of the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice as well as a deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint is found allowable.

                    14. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to replace the steel wheel with an alloy wheel of the same specifications as that of the other 4 regular alloy wheels to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant allowed to realize the whole amount ordered herein above and the price of an alloy wheel with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.                               

                    Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11^th day of December, 2014.

                                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                                                    Jacob Stephen,                   

                                                                                                       (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)       :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)          :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  P.E. Lalachan

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :   Copy of the vehicle tax invoice dated 26.04.2014 for Rs.11,06,501/-  

          issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the complainant. 

A2 :   Copy of the 1^st page of the sales contract dated 30.01.2014 issued by  

          the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the complainant. 

A3 :  Copy of the specification of the complainant’s car issued by the  

         opposite party. 

A4     :  3^rd page of Ext.A3 showing features of the car. 

A5    : Copy of the e.mail letter dated 31.05.2014 issued by the complainant  

           to the 3^rd opposite party. 

A6     : Reply of the 3^rd opposite party to Ext.A5 letter. 

A7    : User’s manual of the car in question issued by the 1^st opposite party.  A8   :  Quotation dated 20.07.2014 by the Oman Marketing and Services  

          Company of Honda issued to the complainant. 

A9   : Delivery checklist issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the  

          complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Manoj Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1  :  Delivery checklist

B2  :  Authorization executed by 3^rd and 4^th opposite party

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                                    (Sd/-)

                                                                                 Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:-   (1) P.E. Lalachan, Plavinal House, Manjadi.P.O.,

                       Pin – 689 105, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta Dist.

1.  Honda Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A1, Sector 40-41,

             Surajpur –Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial-

             Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar,

             Uttar Pradesh – 201 306.

1.  Honda Cars India Ltd., Regd. Office: 409, Tower B,

              DL Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi – 110 025.

1.  The Proprietor, Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd., Building No.XI/243,

              Survey No.434/3, 434/V, Nattakom, Kottayam – 686 013.

1. The Proprietor, Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kunnithottathil Towers,

             St. Stephen’s Jn., Ring Road, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

       (6)  The Stock File.