As Per Hon’ble President Mr. Atul Alshi.

1. The complainant has filed complaint for replacement of AVN system which is not connected to mobile phone of complainant and directed to OP to replace the car with new car or OP paid price of car Rs.11,25,000/- alongwith Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation and cost.

2. The complainant case is as under –

The complainant purchased one Honda Car on 09.08.2018 for the price Rs.11,25,000/- as per invoice No. A-18093 which manufactured by OP No. 1 and sold by authorized dealer OP No. 2. After test drive employee of OP explained that vehicle is having the facility of AVN connectivity.

The person will be communicated wirelessly through the system of vehicle while driving, therefore, the complainant has purchased the said vehicle. The complainant was using I-phone 7 mobile which is best mobile in the world. The AVN system installed in the car was defective and not connected to I-phone mobile. The complainant made complaint about defect to OP No. 2 dtd.27.10.2018. The OP No.2 replaced the old system to new system but problem could not be solved. The OP mentioned in the invoice No. SR 32218-6685 that “new system replaced with old one by PSS still problem not resolved”. The complainant submitted that the problem still not solved and the said facility not in use. Therefore, complainant made again complaint to OP No. 2 on 14.01.2019 new AVN system for voice command which was again replaced by OP No. 2 but defect could not be removed. The complainant repeatedly made complaint to OP No. 1 by e-mail but OP No. 1 refused to correct the defect in the vehicle. The complainant submits that 8 months have passed but without any solution for redressal which is defective from the date of sale amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3. The OP No. 1 filed reply and denied allegations and submitted that the OP No. 1 shares relationship on principal to principal basis with dealership and independently liable for their own respective action and no liability can be fastened upon OP No. 1 for the actions and omissions of dealership. OP No. 1 play no role in selling of cars to customers and do not gave service after selling. The OP No. 1 comes into picture only where manufacturing defect is alleged or found in car. The complainant has not filed documents pertaining to expert evidence or the alleged inherent manufacturing defect in AVN system to prove the allegations made by him. When the complainant was himself satisfied with performance of AVN system prior purchase and he was not raise dispute and therefore, the question of assurance and promise does not arise. There is no defect in AVN system and car. Despite the assistance provide by OP No. 2 the complainant has leveled false allegations with ulterior motive to harass or to gain unlawfully. The complainant filed false case and may be dismissed with exemplary cost.   

4. The OP No. 2 filed reply and denied allegations and submitted that the OP No. 2 from time had forwarded the complaints to OP No. 1 after receipts of complaints from complainant. On 27.10.2018 the complainant replaced the old system with new system but the problem could not be solved. Again OP No. 2 has replaced the system with new one. The technical problem in AVN system is necessary for OP No. 1 to be solved. The OP No. 2 further submitted that no cause of action arose against seller of car, Therefore, the complaint deserved to be dismissed against OP No. 2 with cost. 

5.               After hearing of counsel for complainant and observing the documents filed on record the following points arose for consideration.

1)Whether the complainant is consumer?                     Yes.

2)Whether there is negligence in service on the part of OPNo.1? yes.                                                                                                3)What order?                                       As per final order.

                         REASONING

5. Point No. 1 to 3 - The complainant purchased one Honda car from OP No. 2 which is manufactured by OP No.1 for Rs.11,25,000/- on 09.08.2018 after test drive of car and during test drive of car the employee of OP No. 2 said that the car has facility of AVN connectivity on mobile. It is also told that once mobile is paired with the system of the vehicle, a person is able to communicate wirelessly while driving the vehicle. The complainant during his job required to travel a lot therefore, decided to purchase the car. But the complainant mobile I phone 7 could not get connected with AVN system. After complaint the OP No. 2 replaced old system with new system but problem could not be solved as mentioned in said invoice no. SR32218-6685 that “new system replaced with old one by PSS still problem not resolved”. The complainant made again second complaint to the OP No. 2 and again the OP No. 2 replaced new AVN system for voice command but still problem could not be solved. The problem of not working of AVN system mentioned in invoice no. SR32218-12100 on 14.01.2019. The complainant made several complaints with respect to non connectivity of Bluetooth of car with mobile to OP No. 1 & 2. It is admitted fact that as per admission given by OP No. 2 in his written statement that, the I phone 7 of complainant could not be connected with AVN system of car after replacement of system twice, therefore when the defect is not removable then it is a manufacturing defect in that case. When it is seen irremovable then in that case no opinion of expert evidence is required. Hence. OP No. 1 who is manufacturer of car is liable to replace new AVN system in complainant’s vehicle. For manufacturing defect the dealer of vehicle is not responsible hence no order is passed against OP No. 2. Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause no. 1 of complaint and OP No. 1 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental torture and Rs,20,000/- towards cost of litigation to complainant as per following order. 

                              ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The O.P.No.1 is liable to replace the AVN system against defect AVN system in complainant’s car.  
3. The OP No.1 liable to pay  Rs.30,000/- towards mental torture and Rs,20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. No order is passed against OP No. 2.
5. The OP No. 1 comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of order.

5.   Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.