District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.69/2022.
Date of Institution: 07.02.2022.
Date of Order: 13.06.2022.
Shri Ankur Gosain s/o Shri D.K.Gosain R/o H. NO. 903, Sector-15A, Faridabad, M. 9891117001
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Honda Cars India Ltd. Office At: Plot NO. A-1, Sector-40/41, Surajpur – Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. – 210306.
2. Sterling Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (Classic Honda) At: 14/1, Mathura Road, Block A, DLF Industrial Area, Sector 27C, Faridabad, Haryana – 121003. Through Managing Director Akhil Aggarwal.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh.Ankur Gosain in person with counsel Ms. Anu Verma.
Ms. Yogita Shrma Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte vide order dated 17.02.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Honda City car 1.5V MT (intec) bearing registration NO. HR-51-BV-2035, Engine No. L15Z17004766 and chassis No. MAKGM657AKN401340 manufactured by opposite party No.1 in the month of February, 2019 and the complainant had also taken the extended warranty in respect of the said car. Suddenly in the month of August 2021 the music system device of the above mentioned car stopped functioning, due to which complainant took the car to opposite party No.2 in order to register the complainant about the stereo system upon which the opposite party No.2 who was the dealer/service provider of opposite eparty No.1 got the music system device checked by its service enginner and informed that the music system of the above car suffers from some manufacturing defect and needs to be replaced. The staff of opposite party No.2 also told the complainant that the music system of the same model was currently available with them and they would had to place order for the same. Opposite party No.2 also took some photographs of the said music system were in order to forward the same to opposite party No.1 for placing the order for a new music system of the same model. Upon asking about the time for replacement, the opposite party No.2 also informed the complainant that it would take two months to get the new music system as the chips of the music system fixed in car of complainant were currently unavailable. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 several times telephonically and asked about the status of the new music system for his car but the opposite party No. 2 always kept putting off the complainant on the pretext that the music system had not been received from the manufactures. On 16.10.2021 when the complainant again contacted the opposite party No.2 to enquire about the new music system then, the concerned staff from opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the photographs of the music system forwarded by opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No.1 were not clear and opposite party No.1 had asked for the clear photographs so the opposite party No.2 sent their representative to the house of the complainant to collect the car of the complainant for taking photographs and after taking photographs the car of the complainant was delivered back to the complainant at his residence and the representative of opposite party No.l2 then informed the complainant and the new stereo system would be delivered in 7-10 working days. After 7-8 days the complainant again contacted the opposite party No.2 to enquire about the new music system for the complainant’s car and then it was told to the complainant that the same had not been received yet from the opposite party No.1 and it would take some more time. The complainant being harassed at the hands of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 also wrote an email dated 23.12.2021 to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 at their respective email addresses narrating the entire situation but the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had failed to replace the music system of complainant’s car till date and had even provide any satisfactory reply to the email of the complainant and opposite party No.1 was now taking the excuse of the Covid 19 pandemic in their reply email dated 25.12.2021 in order to hide the deficiency of service on their part. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) replace the abovementioned Honda City car of the complainant with a new car equipped with the properly functioning Music System Device having all features as there were in the current device installed in complainant’s car.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.50,000/ - as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the relationship shared between opposite party No.2 and the answering opposite party was on principal to principal basis as defined under the Dealership Agreement. The ancillary services such as after sale service were exclusively provided by authorized dealer i.e. opposite party No.2. Each opposite party was liable for its own respective actions and none assumes liability for the actions of the other. It was only in the case of any manufacturing defect that answering opposite party was required to meet its obligations as per the terms of the warranty. Any grievance with respect to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice/delay in repairs can only be made against opposite party NO.2. It was submitted that in the captioned matter impleading the answering opposite party was uncalled for and baseless as there was not a single allegation against the answering opposite party and no manufacturing defect in the vehicle of the complainant. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party had neither sold the car to the complainant nor had rendered any services to him. It was submitted that the answering opposite party was car manufacturer and once the car was manufactured, the same was sold to the authorized dealers. Thereafter, the dealers sold those cars to their customers according to their independent marketing strategies and the answering opposite party was neither a party to such sales by the dealer nor had any role to play in the same. Even the responsibility with respect to the servicing/repairing of the car was solely of the authorized dealers and no liability can be fastened against the answering opposite party in this regard. It was humbly submitted that at the time of purchase of the car every customer of the authorized dealer was handed over with the User Manual and Warranty Booklet and it was mandatory for customers to read these booklets as it helps the new buyers to understand the specifications/conditions of the machinery of their new car. It was submitted that the warranty booklet also mentions that any damage resulting from operating method prohibited under the User Manual was specifically excluded from the warranty. The car of the complainant got damaged due to his own negligence and the complainant himself was responsible for the same. The complainant had miserably failed to establish in his complaint that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of inherent/manufacturing defect had persisted in vehicle as neither any engineer’s report nor any other convincing material had been filed before the Forum. The allegation of manufacturing defect in a vehicle was not to be taken to be as a gospel truth on mere statement but it was required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “item delivery confirmed”. Case called several time since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.02.2022.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Honda Cars India Ltd. & Ors. with the prayer to : a) replace the abovementioned Honda City car of the complainant with a new car equipped with the properly functioning Music System Device having all features as there were in the current device installed in complainant’s car. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs.50,000/ - as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Ankur Gosain, Ex.C-1 –RC, Ex.C-2 & 3 – emails, Ex.C4 – New Vehicle warranty.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.OP1/I – affidavit of Shri Rishabh Bhutani, Manager Legal with Honda Cars India Limited having office at Plot No.A-1, Sectgr-40/41, Surajpur Kasna road, greater Noida Industrial Development area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., Ex.IP1/ A – Authority letter, Ex.OP1/B – dealership agreement, Ex.OP1/C – Manual and Warranty Booklet.
7. Shri Ankur Gosain , Complainant has made a statement that “I only press for the harassment and litigation charges.”
8. Keeping in view of the statement of the complainant and evidence led by the parties that there is no manufacturing defect and franchise of the manufacturer is responsible for the delay. It shows the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 i.e dealer. Opposite party No.2 is liable for the deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is disposed off against opposite party No.2 with the direction to opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 13.06.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
