Delhi

North East

CC/259/2014

Rajan Dass Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

10 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 259/14

In the matter of:

 

		Rajan Das Gupta Flat No. B-19/228, Pharma Apartments, Plot No. 88, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092   Also at : Flat No. C-601, Supertech Orchids, H-1 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                     2.	Honda Cars India Ltd. 409, Tower-B, DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi-110025   Also at: Honda Cars India Ltd Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Dasna Road, Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201306   Naksha Enterprises Private Limited, FF-84, Ansal Fortune Arcade Sector-19, NOIDA 201301 (U.P.)   Also at: Naksha Enterprises Private Limited G-25, Sector 11, NOIDA 201301 U.P.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		07.07.2014
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		03.11.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		10.11.2017

 

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

Order by Shri N.K.Sharma, President:-

 

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant who is a practicing lawyer. The complainant has stated that he had purchased a Honda Civic Car bearing Registration No. UP 14BD 0611 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the car’) from OP2, being the authorized dealer of OP1, on 30.07.2010. The complainant has stated that the OP has promised to complainant a long term and extended warranty for an aggregate period of 4 years i.e. usual warranty for 2 years plus 2 years of additional warranty on the Honda Civic Model of the said car. However, 2013-14 onwards (i.e. during the period of extended warranty 2013-14) the said car started giving problems viz. defective ignition lock set, jamming of entire power steering system of the car, A.C. system failure and issue with right hand side view mirror. The complainant  stated that except rectifications in the first problem of ignition lock set and entire power steering system, the rest of the malfunctioning of the car were refused by the OPs. On the ground that no such warranty is applicable for replacement of defective components. At this point on being shown the warranty booklet by the complainant, the OP2 stated that they will have to first take warranty approval from the OP1. However, in May 2014 the Customer Relationship Department of OP by Email denied any warranty replacement to complainant which reason the complainant had to get the AC component namely cooling coil and defective and defective electric right hand side view mirror replaced at his own cost of Rs. 40,000/- appx. Lastly, the complainant stated that due to the refusal by the OP to perform their warranty obligation in respect of defective equipment of the car, OPs have caused great mental agony, financial stressed and harassment. When there is no justification or premise at all on the basis of which the warranty for the same could have been denied to complainant by the OP and as such said act is bad and refusal to perform the warranty obligation on the ground of irregular maintenance schedule / service on part of complainant with reference to the said car was insubstantial, concocted and fictitious allegations by the OP by adopting unfair and illegal business practices. The complainant had, therefore, issued a legal notice to OP on 12.05.2014 which was replied by OP on 06.06.2014. Alleging negligence on the part of complainant improper maintenance of car and failure to get the vehicle service as per service requirement in accordance to the service schedule mentioned in warranty. Therefore, finding no other alternative to redressal of his grievance, the complainant was constraint to file the present complaint and prayed :-

1. Refund of Rs. 13,00,000/- towards purchase of the said car alongwith interest 24% per annum till the date of realization; and
2. Refund the sum of Rs. 23,398/- paid by complainant for repairs of AC system and replacement of related components alongwith interest at 24% p.a. till the date of realization; and
3. Refund a sum of Rs. 16,000/- to complainant towards replacement cost of defective right hand side rear view mirror assembly/ component, alongwith interest at 24% p.a. till date of realization.
4. Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant for physical harassment, mental agony and financial stress and cost directly caused on account of the malafide and deliberate inactions by the OP;
5. Award interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amounts of refund and compensation etc to the complainant for the period till the date of realization of each of such amounts by the complainant.
6. Any other order.

2. Notices were issued to OP. Written statement filed by OP1 & OP2. Both have taken preliminary objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint u/s 11(2) of  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the OPs have neither Corporate Office / Registered office nor any Branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has failed to make any averments to establish how this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In fact, the Memo of Parties filed by the complainant itself reveals that neither the OPs had or have their offices within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, in view of the above this Forum doesn’t have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the present complaint. Further OP stated that the complainant had been grossly negligent in maintaining and servicing his vehicle as per prescribed schedule and the OP1 filed a detailed chart of the repair history of said vehicle showing irregular servicing which has rightfully neglected the extended warranty obligation of the OPs qua the car of complainant and therefore any claim arising out of consequential damage on account of negligence of maintaining of the vehicle can’t be brought within the preview of extended warranty. The OPs cited catena of judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission on this issue. OP further states that the vehicle had been neglected for carrying out timely service and therefore, any claim arising of the consequent damage on account of negligence is excluded for initial warranty as well as extended warranty and therefore, the complainant was hit by clause  5(A)(a) of the limitation of extended warranty which states that extended warrant will not apply to any damage with result for neglected of period maintained as specified by OP.
3. Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit. Written Arguments has also been filed by both the parties. Arguments were heard.
4. We have perused the case file very carefully and the documents placed on record therein. Though, bare perusal of Memo of parties clearly and unequivocally establishes that neither of the OPs had any corporate / registered / branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such the condition stipulated in section 11 sub clause 2 (a) or (b) or (c) of CPA were not fulfilled, however the OP did not strongly Oppose or question/dispute the jurisdiction of this forum and therefore in accordance with proviso 11 (2)(b) (ii), it was deemed acquiescence on part of the OP with respect to jurisdiction of this forum and therefore as per section 11 sub clause 2 sub clause (b) (i) this forum granted permission to the complainant for being heard on the said complaint.
5. After going through the above facts and circumstances of the case and thorough perusal and appreciation of documentary evidence placed on record we are of the considered view that OP have indulged in unfair trade practice in their act of rejection of warranty replacements of AIR conditioning coil and other related equipments as well as right hand side view mirror with respect to the complainant’s car despite the same being covered and within the period of extended warranty on flimsy ground by trying to take refuge under irregular serving schedule on the part of complainant. It has been seen that on several previous occasion the OP had express its reluctance in getting defective parts replaced or rectified and the complainant had to write e-mails to high officials of the OP after which the OP carried out repair/replacement work under pressure while the OP was all along aware that the car was running within extended warranty period. We therefore, hold the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the stand of the OP is devoid of merit and because the warranty had been extended qua the said car in favor of the complainant therefore the OPs were duty bound to repairs/replace the AC system and right hand side view mirror of the car which duty they failed to perform citing lame excuses for irregular schedule of servicing and this unsavory volte face has to be dealt with firmly. We therefore are inclined to grant relief to the complainant and direct the OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally in capacity of manufacturer and dealer as and in accordance with the settled law/ legal proposition of both being accountable and liable for each other.
6. We therefore direct the OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to compensate the complainant under the following heads:-

1. Refund a sum of Rs. 24,398/- which was the amount paid by the complainant for repairs of AC system and replacement of related components due to refusal by the OPs to repair the same.
2. Refund a sum of Rs. 16,000/- to the complainant towards replacement cost of defective right hand side view mirror assembly / component which was the amount paid by the complainant for replacement due to refusal by the OPs to replace the same.
3. Interest @ of 9% p.a. on Rs. 40,398/- which is the cumulative / total cost under above mentioned heads (a) and (b) from the date of institution of complaint till realization.
4. We also award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of physical harassment, mental agony and financial stress caused to the complainant payable by the OPs due to inaction on the part of OPs and lastly Rs. 15,000/- are awarded to the complainant towards cost of litigation payable by the OPs.

The OPs are directed to comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of the same. Failing which, the rate of interest shall be enhanced to 12% instead of 9% on the heads (a) and (b).

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.
9. (Announced on  10.11.2017)         

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member