Delhi

North East

CC/107/2018

Rohit Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

12 Jul 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.107/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rohit Singla, Through his Authorized Representative   Mr. Cherub Singla S/o Sh. Rohit Singla R/o C 504, Aashiana Apartment Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi 110091   Mr. Vidit Garg S/o Sh. Manoj Garg R/o C-112, Narwana Apartment Patparganj, Delhi 110092	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.             3.         4.           5.	Honda Cars India Ltd., Plot No. A 1, Sector 40/41 Surajpur Kasna Road Greater Noida Industrial Development Area UP 201306   Prime Honda-Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1 Patparganj Industrial Complex (Near Mother Dairy) Delhi 110092 (Through its Directors)   Ace Honda Naksha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd G 25, Sector 11 Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida UP 201301 (Through its Directors)   Delight Honda Nath Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 5B, Sector 15A, Crown Plaza Mall Mathura Road, Faridabad 121001 Through its Directors   Sterling Honda ZB 45-46/487, Opposite Dilshad Garden Metro Station G.T Road Shahdara Delhi 110095 Through its Directors	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

04.06.2018 15.05.2023 12.07.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Honda Car vide registration no. DL 2CQ 8950 from Opposite Party No. 3 in January 2014 manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1. It is the case that within the very short time, the rear right hand side door locking system, seat belt, horn, dash board, gears/transmission, AC, ignition lock/steering lock stopped working properly and required replacement. And as time was passing by, more and more problems surfaced. It is the case that the quality standard of safety equipment of the car was also very low. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party No. 2 to Opposite Party No. 5 never acknowledged the problems and defects in the car and they denied to do the service under the warranty. It is the case that some new parts which were changed by the Opposite Party No. 2 to Opposite Party No. 5 in place of defective/damaged parts were themselves defective and got damaged within short span of time. Complainant made a complaint to the Opposite Party No. 1 regarding the same but Opposite Party No. 1 referred back to the authorized service centre to solve the problem who again denied to acknowledge the problem. Complainant stated that the car sold to the Complainant is a defective piece of equipment/model. Complainant stated that there was continuous rattling sound form the dashboard. However, Opposite Parties never considered the car defect being plastic parts damaged, which are not covered under the warranty. Complainant stated that there are problems in dashboard, horn, AC wipers, battery, right hand rear door lock, shifting gear and Complainant made a complaint against these to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties replaced some items but after a short span of time problem kept reoccurring. Complainant stated that some equipment had to be replaced by the Complainant at his own cost. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 4 had denied the warranty of some equipment as plastic parts are not covered under warranty. Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties regarding the defect in goods. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for denying the warranty commitment , to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and to refund the purchase amount of Rs. 8,62,000/-.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false and frivolous. It is submitted that the Complainant had purchased the said car on 21.01.2014. It is stated that if there would have been any manufacturing defect it would have appeared after few days of purchase of the car but the Complainant failed to raise any such issue with the Opposite Party No. 1 and raised it before the court after 4 year of purchase of car. It is stated that Complainant stated in his complaint that the problem with regard to the manufacturing defect in the vehicle arises after few days of purchase of car but even then he did not bother to inform the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No. 1. It is stated that it could not be construed that the vehicle of the Complainant suffered with any manufacturing defect as the same is false and baseless and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

3. Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is submitted that the Complainant has chosen this Forum based on his convenience in order to file the complaint before this Hon’ble Forum however the liberty was sought to file the same before the State Commission as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Complainant was above Rs. 20 lakh thus the same cannot be filed before this  Forum merely on the ground that the Complainant has reduced the claim and have added one more party in order to maintain the complaint before a different consumer forum having similar jurisdiction, thus the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the car was sold by the Opposite Party No. 3 and at the time of sale there was no defect of deficiency in the car as alleged by the Complainant. It is stated that each car is tested at the Honda factory to the highest standard of quality in the automobile industry before it is rolled out of the factory and then only the cars are dispatched to dealers for sale. It is stated that each car is again inspected prior to the delivery to the purchaser. It is further stated that there was no defect in the car at the time of selling the said car and the Complainant is misleading and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party    No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 5 despite notice served. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 5 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.02.2019.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No.3

5.  The Complainant filed common rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Authorized Representative in support of the case of the Complainant filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri. Rishabh Bhutani, working as Manager, Legal, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant.
9.  The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties have misrepresentative regarding the quality of the car. The car sold to him was a hazardous product. The Complainant was harassed and the Opposite Parties were deficient in proving service. The Opposite Parties have denied the warranty. It is the case of the Complainant that the door locking system, seatbelt, horn, dashboard, and gear transmission system became faulty. The engine was giving noise and the quality of the safety equipment of the car is of very low quality. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Parties is that there is no manufacturing defect and the Opposite Parties never denied any deficiency of service to the Complainant.
10. It is important to note that the Complainant has filed the present complaint through his son and his son has also filed evidence by way of affidavit. Along with the complaint one invoice dated 09.09.2021 has been filed when the car was taken for service at Malwa Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Sonipat, Haryana. The perusal of the same shows that no such major repair was done on the said date. The amount paid for service/repair of the car was only Rs. 708/-. The perusal of the said invoice further shows that on the said date the car had already run 82,909 kms. On 13.09.2021 the car of the Complainant was inspected by Praveen Motor workshop Sonipat. The Complainant has filed report of the said inspection. The relevant part of the report is reproduced as under :

       “Problems Observed

1. Leakage of Engine Oil/Coolant.
2. Engine Oil mixed with coolant.
3. Engine Noise
4. Black smoke from Exhaust

           Inspection of Engine:

                       Engine block damaged/defective. Hole in Engine Block.

                       Engine Gasket found to be ok.

           Recommendation

                       Engine needs replacement

                       Cost of inspection: Rs. 5,000/-.”

11. The report of Directorate of Training and Technical Education Delhi was also called. The report dated 23.10.2019 was submitted by Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra. The relevant part of the report is reproduced as under :

        “The following technical observations/opinion were made:

1. The vehicle bearing regn. No. DL 2CQ 8950 inspected after 75650 km (odometer reading) of runs.
2. Clutch hardness in operation observed on above said vehicle during test drive.
3. Gear shifting problems observed for all gears at 75650 kms that should not have happen at lower mileage of the vehicle. So, the facts that this defect persist since beginning cannot be ignored.
4. Driver Safety Seat belt mechanism jam defective.
5. Due the inherent manufacturing defect of dash board with regards to AC knob since the purchase of the vehicle, performance of different air vents within the dash board were not effective. This condition leads to foggy front windshield, which in turn may lead to an accident.
6. Excessive exhaust blow black smoke with particulars matters was observed during inspection, whenever the vehicle was accelerated.
7. Performance of diesel Catalytic converter deteriorated and requires replacement.
8. Excessive engine noise and vibrations observed during inspection of the vehicle.
9. AC grill broken that may be due to defect during manufacturing of dashboard.

Considering above stated observations on said vehicle, I would like to convey with my technical conclusion/opinion strengthen with technical knowledge, that the concerned dealer/manufacturer should replace the Gears assembly in complete, Catalytic converter assembly, Clutch plate and dash board.”

 

12. Thus from the invoice dated 09.09.2021 shows that after 7 years of the purchase of the car the car has done 82,909 kms. Further the perusal of the said invoice shows that no such defect has been pointed out in the said tax invoice. Further the inspection of the car was also conducted after 7 years of the purchase of the car. No manufacturing defect/major defect has been pointed out even after 7 years of the purchase of the car. Similarly the report dated 23.10.2019 of Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra which is after 5 years of the purchase of the car does not indicate any major defect in the car.
13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove its case and the complaint is dismissed.
14. Order announced on 12.07.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)