| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 33 of 6-02-2019 Decided on : 29-04-2022 Ruchika Garg aged about 42 years W/o Sh. Naresh Garg R/o #13317 (MCB-Z/4-05781), Namdev Marg Corner, Bhatti Road, Bathinda 151 001. ........Complainant
Versus Honda Cars India Ltd., Regd. Office 409 Tower B, DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi 110 025, through its Owner/Director/CEO/Incharge Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer for Honda, Mansa Road, Bathinda 151 001, through its Owner/Director/CEO/Incharge J & K Bank, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Sahil Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate, for OP No. 1 Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate, for OP No.2 OP No. 3 exparte ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Ruchika Garg (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Honda Cars India Ltd., & others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she is the owner of New Honda Sedan Car Regd. No.PB-03-AU-0998 purchased at Bathinda from opposite party No. 2. The Said Vehicle is financed by J & K Bank, Bathinda (0.P. No.3) but the same is not necessary party as there is no complaint or claim against them. It is alleged that complainant purchased the above said New Honda Sedan Car on 18.07.2017 from opposite party No. 2 manufactured by opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs. 13,49,308/-. It was averred by the opposite parties that Honda is a best company in cars and they provide full featured new Sedan Car with latest GPRS system and fully new version of Navigation System. At the time of selling the car in July 2017, the opposite parties assured that this is the latest model/version of the car and navigation system is world's No.1 system and totally automatic and installed updated system upto July 2017. The complainant alleged that when she used the navigation system, she noticed that even the National Highways are not shown in the navigation system like Bathinda Delhi and Bathinda Chandigarh etc. The complainant immediately approached the Bathinda office of the opposite parties, but they stated that their engineer will resolve the issue within few days. During this more than 18 months period, the complainant visited opposite party No.2 about 10 to 12 times and requested to update the navigation system as the complainant facing the problem with the GPRS navigation system which is totally outdated. Even Bathinda-Chandigarh National Highway, Bathinda-Delhi National Highway, Bathinda-Muktsar State Highway etc., are not shown in the navigation system on screen and in this regard the complainant, also sent screen shots and videos on what's app to one. Mr. RajiV Kumar Representative of the opposite parties. The complainant also alleged that when she checked this navigation system software, then it came to her knowledge that the system is older and discarded one and the same is last updated in 2016, whereas the complainant purchased this car in July, 2017 with assurance of new navigation system. Few days back, when complainant was coming from Chandigarh in the late night, due to the outdated navigation system of the opposite parties, the complainant lost her way near Patiala-Sangrur. Thereafter the complainant again visited the workshop of the opposite parties at Bathinda but nobody listen to her. The complainant further alleged that she got served legal notice upon the opposite parties on 27.12.2018, in this regard, but till date no reply has been received. After the legal notice, one representative of the opposite parties contacted the complainant and took the outdated Navigation System card from the complainant, but on 04.02.2019 they returned the same without updating the Navigation System and flatly refused to update or change the navigation system of the car. The complainant also sent emails to the opposite parties, but all in vain. The official of opposite party No. 2 admited that the version is older one and totally out of order. The opposite party No. 2 also verifed the same by touring on the National Highways in the car of the complainant and in this regard they duly endorsed the complaint of the complainant in email dated 29.12.2018. The opposite party No. 2 admitted that AVN showing going through fields without roads besides through road and they tried to update the Map card through Naviextra software which showing "Map card up to date". The complainant alleged that due to said act of the opposite parties, she is suffering mental agony and pains for which she claims compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in addition to interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of purchase of this Outdated Navigation System till payment. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to change the Navigation system with new one of updated Navigation system or update Navigation system up-to-date or change the car with new one with updated Navigation System or refund the car price of about Rs.16,00,000/- including Taxes etc. along with interest @ 18% p.a. and also pay to complainant Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation besides Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply. The opposite party No. 1 filed written reply raising preliminary objections that bare perusal of the complaint makes it evident that none of the provisions of the “Act' are attracted to the subject matter of the present complaint. The complainant has failed to disclose any 'defect' or 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' so as to bring the present complaint within the purview of the said Act. That the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint pertain to the after sales service rendered by the dealership i.e. opposite party No. 1 as also the GPRS navigation manufactured by the Audio Video Navigation manufacturing company. It has been pleaded that main grievance of the complainant is with respect to the allegation that the GPRS/ AVN Navigation system in the subject car suffered from a manufacturing defect. The complainant has further alleged that despite assurances from the dealer i.e. opposite party No. 2 to update or replace the navigation system, the same was flatly refused. All the aforesaid allegations are made against the dealer i.e. opposite party No. 2 and none pertain to opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 does not manufacture the GPRS/ AVN Navigation system which is manufactured by a third company namely Premium Sound Solutions Private Limited, Pune. Moreover, the warranty provided by the opposite party No. 1 does not include additional accessories including GPRS/ AVN navigation and the same is provided by its manufacturer alone. In the absence of any allegations towards manufacturing defect in a part manufactured by opposite party No. 1 or any technical or mechanical failure in the subject car, no claim can be made against opposite party No. 1. That the complainant has not impleaded Premium Sound Solutions Private Limited, having its registered office/plant at Poonam Plaza Mezzanine Floor Survey No. 694/26, Plot No, 12, Market Yard Road, Bibavewadi, Pune, Maharashtra, who has manufactured the GPRS/ AVN Navigation system. Any alleged issue related to the aforesaid navigation system can only be taken up against its manufacturer. The report of the manufacturer of the GPRS/ AVN Navigation system is essential to come on record for the adjudication of the case. Therefore, the present cornplant is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties. That the complainant has unnecessarily dragged opposite party No. 1. The legal relationship between the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is derived from an express dealership agreement entered between the parties which strictly states it to be on a principal to principal basis. There is no master agent relationship between them. Moreover, they are two separate entities who conduct run on an independent modus operandi. Thus, the actions and/or omissions of one party cannot he regarded as that of the others and the liabilities attached thereto cannot he transferred. It is only in the case of any manufacturing defect that the opposite party No. 1 is required to meet its obligations as per the terms of the warranty. Since the present complaint does not pertain to any manufacturing defect in the mechanical parts of the subject car which could affect its performance, impleading opposite party No. 1 in the present complaint is uncalled for and baseless. That opposite party No. 1 being the manufacturer of the subject car does not engage into providing any ancillary services such as after sale services to the end consumer including the complainant. The same is solely provided by the individual dealerships including opposite party No. 2 in their own capacity, Therefore, any allegation with respect to deficiency in service can only be taken up against opposite party No. 2. It has been pleaded that the main prayer sought by the complainant in so far as replacement of the Navigation system with a new updated version or to update the already installed navigation system in the subject car has become infructuous as opposite party No. 1 does not provide any warranty or service on the additional accessories such as Navigation system installed in the subject car and the same is provided by a third party agency. In view of the same, no relief can be claimed against it. Moreover, the transaction of sale of the subject car was solely between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 was neither privy nor a party to the same. The opposite party No. 1 after manufacturing its cars sells the same to individual dealerships on bulk orders and on a no name basis. Therefore, the price of the subject car was collected by opposite party No. 2 in their own individual capacity. The same cannot be claimed from the opposite party No. 1 in the absence of any inherent manufacturing defect. The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded that without prejudice to the contention that there is no manufacturing defect in the car, the warranty obligation of opposite party No. 1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of an individual part which proves defective within the limit of warranty at no charge to the customer for parts and labor. The warranty policy does not provide for replacement of the entire car itself. Further preliminary objections are that the the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint.That the complaint is totally misconceived, false, vexatious and devoid of any cause of action and the same has been filed with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party. That detailed evidences, both oral and documentary are required to be lead and the complainant is also required to be examined on oath and all this, cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings. That none of the opposite parties have indulged in any unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice or has been deficient in providing their services to the complainant. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that complainant herself has admitted that vehicle has been purchased by way of financial assistance from J & K Bank, Bhatinda. As such, complainant is not consumer and has no locus standi to file the complaint. In further reply, the opposite party No. 1 reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written reply raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. That the complaint is bad for misjoinder of opposite party No. 2. The entire allegation in the complaint relates to opposite party No.l. Moreover, the GPRS System has been provided by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1 and there is no liability quo opposite party No. 2. That intricate and contentious questions of fact and law are involved in the present complaint, which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence as such the same cannot be decided by way of summary jurisdiction enacted before this Commission. That the complaint is time barred. That the complaint is false, vexatious and the frivolous. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 admitted that complainant is owner of car in question. It has been pleaded that complainant had herself opted to purchase car in question and after being satisfied with the ' quality and features of the vehicle. she opted to purchase the same. The car in question purchased by the complainant had been delivered as manufactured and distributed by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No. 2. The navigation system had been duly displayed to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle and she after being satisfied, had purchased the said car. The opposite party No. 2 had forwarded the complaint of the complainant to opposite party No.1 vide mail dated 29.12.2018 as the said complaint of GPRS related to opposite party No.1 who had manufactured the vehicle and fitted the said GPRS in the vehicle. It is denied that the complainant had visited 10-12 times as alleged. It has been pleaded that the mail of the complainant has been forwarded on 29.12.2018 and further another mail has been forwarded on 7.1.2019. The opposite party No. 2 had duly conveyed the complaint of the complainant on both occasions to opposite party No.1 and it is opposite party No.1 who is to rectify the alleged complaint relating to GPRS. The Navigation System has been provided by opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No. 2 has absolutely no concern with the same and the Navigation System is in order as and when tested in and around Bathinda City. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of her complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 6-2-2019 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of R.C. (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Invoice (Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of e-mails. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence photocopy of authority letter (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of clause (Ex. OP-1/2) and affidavit dated 12-3-2019 of M K Bipin (Ex. OP-1/3). The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 19-3-2019 of Neetu Singh Chahal (Ex. OP-2/1). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. The complainant has alleged that when she used navigation system inbuilt in her car, she found that even some National Highways are not shown in the navigation system and on checking the navigation system software, it came to the notice of the complainant that system is older and discarded one and was lastly updated in 2016. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite repeated requests and visits to opposite party No. 2 navigation system was not updated and is still faulty. It shows that the opposite parties failed to update the navigation system/GPRS. Hence, complainant is entitled to replacement of car in question with new one. The submission of learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 is that the transaction of sale of the subject car was solely between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 was neither privy nor a party to the same. The opposite party No. 1 after manufacturing its cars sells the same to individual dealerships on bulk orders and on a no name basis. Therefore, the price of the subject car was collected by opposite party No. 2 in their own individual capacity. The same cannot be claimed from the opposite party No. 1 in the absence of any inherent manufacturing defect. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 further submitted that warranty obligation of opposite party No. 1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of an individual part which proves defective within the limit of warranty at no charge to the customer for parts and labour. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that car in question purchased by the complainant had been delivered as manufactured and distributed by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No. 2. The navigation system had been duly displayed to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle and she after being satisfied, had purchased the said car. The opposite party No. 2 had forwarded the complaint of the complainant to opposite party No.1 as the said complaints of GPRS related to opposite party No.1 who had manufactured the vehicle and fitted the said GPRS in the vehicle. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 referred :- (i) 2000 (10) SCC 654 case titled Hindustan Motors Ltd and another Vs. N Siva Kumar and another (ii) 2008(2) CPR 271 (NC) case titled Tata Eng. And Locomotive Company Ltd., and Anr. Vs. Sunil Bhasin and Anr. (iii) 2014 (2) CPJ 24 (NC) case titled New india Assurance Co. Ltd., and Anr. Vs. Kumar Gaurav and Ors. (iv) 2010 (1) CPJ 235 (NC) case titled Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Anr. (v) 2012 (3) CPJ 677 (NC) case titled Krishi Pragati Vs. Hazar Ul Isalam & Ors. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admitted facts of the parties are that the opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of the car in question and opposite party No. 2 sold the car to complainant. GPRS/Navigation System in the car is inbuilt. In the case in hand, the complainant has approached this Commision for redressal of her grievance regarding faulty GPRS system fitted/inbuilt in her New Car. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased New Honda Sedan Car on 18-7-2017, manufactured by opposite party No. 1 from opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 13,49,308/-. The opposite parties have not specifically denied the fact regarding not working of GPRS/AVN Navigation System, but they are trying to shift the reponsibility of update and malfunctiong of GPRS/AVN Navigation system, on each other shoulders and in this way, the complainant despite spending such a huge amount is not satisfied with the system provided by the opposite parties in the car in question and suffering harassement at the hands of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 in para No. 12 on merits in written reply has pleaded that the update and malfunctioning, if any, of the system has to be rectified by the Premium Sound Solutions Private Limited, Pune only as the opposite party No. 1 is not the manufacturer of the GPRS/AVN Navigation System. Such pleading of opposite party No. 1 is not justified. If GPRS/AVN system manufactured and provided by Premium Sound Solutions Private Limited then it was opposite party No. 1 who contacted that Company and got fitted that system in car in question being manufacturer of said car. The complainant was never in contact with that company and she has not got fitted that system by herself in her car. The opposite party No. 2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1 and complainant purchased the car in question from opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 was equally responsible to get the grievance of the complainant redressed and make the complainant satisfied regarding product which it sold to her, by proper follow-up with opposite party No. 1. The reponsibility of opposite party No. 2 is not just to get over by forwarding complaints of consumer to manufacturer. The opposite party No. 2 has not placed on file any evidence to prove that proper follow up has been made by opposite party No. 2 with opposite party No. 1 to solve the issue. Moreover, before delivery of said car to complainant, pre-delivery inspection (PDI) was the job of opposite party No. 2. The opposite parties cannot shirk out their responsibility by showing fingers towards each other. Installation of outdated/defective GPRS/AVN Navigation system in car and then failure to replace the same with new one on request of complainant, itself amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Thus, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 stands proved. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, they are distinguishable on facts. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to replace the defective/faulty GPRS/AVN Navigation system of the car in question of the complainant with new updated GPRS/AVN Navigation system. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 29-04-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
