Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/697/2016

Dr. Maninder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sahil Khunger

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/697/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	26/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	02/03/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Maninder Kaur D/o Gurmail Singh, R/o #85, New Darshani Bagh, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

1.   Honda Cars India Pvt. Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur – Kasna Road, Greater Nodia Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201306, through its Director/Managing Director/ Authorized Officer.

 

2.   Lally Automobile Private Limited, Plot No.6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Officer.

……… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR          PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sahil Khunger, Counsel for Complainant.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Y.P. Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant sent his Honda Civic car bearing Regn. NO. CH-01-AC-6010 to Opposite Party No.2 on 5.8.2016 for basic servicing. The Service Advisor of Opposite Party No.2 did not inform him regarding replacement of any part of the car. During servicing of the vehicle, the Service Advisor informed the Complainant that the original airbag inflator of the vehicle needs to be replaced and the Opposite Party No.1 has instructed them to do so. The Complainant refused for the same as there was no such communication from Opposite Party No.1. However, without there being any consent, the Opposite Party No.2 replaced the airbag inflator (SRS Inflator & Kit AS Inflator C). The Complainant pronto took up the matter with the Service Manager of Opposite Party No.2, who replied that the same was replaced free of cost on the asking of Opposite Party No.1. Disappointed and harassed by the conduct of the Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant wrote an e-mail to Opposite Party No.1 on 06.08.2016, but to no success. However, the Opposite Party No.2 vide e-mail dated 6.8.2016 informed the Complainant that the part was replaced under product update campaign initiated recently by the parent Company i.e. Honda Cars India Pvt. Limited (Opposite Party No.1). Eventually, the Complainant wrote e-mail dated 6.8.2016 to the Opposite Parties to clarify whether his vehicle was covered under the campaign initiated by Honda, but no authentic and convincing reasoning was given by the Opposite Parties, despite constant follow ups. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the car was sold to a Company (M/s Ind Swift Communications Pvt. Ltd.) and not to the Complainant, hence she is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While admitting that the replacements carried out under free PUD by Opposite Party No.2, it has been asserted that the same does not fall within the definition of deficiency. It has been urged that the PUD was carried out for the enhanced safety of vehicle/passenger free of charges as per the instructions of Opposite Party No.1. The answering Opposite Party had provided the best service to it all customers and it is only the Complainant who is alleging deficiency on free service given to owner of vehicle for better safety and without asking. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.2 has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed by both the sides. 

 

7.      In the present case, the main grouse of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties replaced few parts of her car without her consent which she was using since 2010. Even if the replacement was done free of cost but the allegation of the Complainant is that she was disappointed and harassed by the conduct of Opposite Parties that despite writing e-mail to Opposite Party No.1 there was no concrete reply to her that why these parts were replaced. But till today she is not clear whether the campaign for the replacement of the parts was actually initiated by the Opposite Party No.1 or not?

 

8.      The stand taken by Opposite Party No.2 is that no deficiency can be pointed out when PUD had been carried out that too free of cost as per Annexure C-2. Further, it has been contended that Opposite Party No.1 being the manufacturer instructed its service outlets/ distributors in the field to carry out free PUD on the identified vehicles received for servicing by them and to maintain a record by mentioning the same in the service invoice. Again, Opposite Party No.2 has contended in Para 10 of its reply that Product Update (PUD) was done as per manufacturer’s product update campaign on identified vehicle as a preventive part replacement.

 

9.      Pertinently, the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.   

 

10.      The first question which falls for consideration is as to whether the Complainant is a consumer or not?  It is clear from Annexure C-1 the Registration Certificate and also from the admission of the Complainant herself that she purchased the vehicle in question from its original purchaser i.e. M/s Indswift Communications Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010. Therefore, the plea of the Opposite Party No.2 is not sustainable and the same is rejected accordingly, hence the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

11.      Undoubtedly, the vehicle was repaired i.e. few parts were replaced, without the consent of the Complainant, which also has been admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 itself as per its e-mail Annexure  C-9. But it also needs to be noted that Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) itself has not come forward to corroborate the defence taken by Opposite Party No.2 that there was some campaign for providing free service to certain identified vehicles.

 

12.      So far as the prayer of the Complainant for refund or replacement of the case is concerned, there is no expert opinion available on record to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Therefore, the act of the ops for non-redressing the grievance of the Complainant and replacing few parts of her car under their product update scheme without her consent certainly caused physical and mental harassment to her. This negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties forced the Complainant to knock the doors of this Forum in the absence of justice.

 

13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]    To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

 

14.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

15.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02^nd March, 2017                                         

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”