IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of December, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 265/2018 (filed on 20-12-2018)
Petitioner : Delgith R.
S/o. Raveendra Kumar Vrindavan House,
Cheruvattoor P.O.
Kothamangalam
Ernakulam.
(Adv. Avaneesh V.N.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : (1) Honda Cars Private Ltd.
Rep. by Managing Director,
Plot No. A1 Sector 40/41
Surajpur –Kasna Road,
Greater Noida Industrial Development
Area, Dist. Goutham Budh Nagar,
Utherpradesh, 201306.
(2) Vision Motors Private Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Building No.11/243
Nattakom P.O. Kottayam – 686013
(Adv. Sreenivas V. Pai, Adv. Luxy T.A
and Adv. Lal K. Joseph)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The Complaint is filed under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986
The brief of the complaint is as follows. The complainant had purchased a Honda Amaze 12 VXMT, I-VTEC BS IV vehicle from the second opposite party on 13/09/2018.The complainant paid Rs.8,60,999/- for the purchase of the vehicle. A loan of Rs.7,00,000/- was taken from SBI Kothamangalam Branch for the purchase of the Vehicle and EMI is remitted promptly. The vehicle was registered in Number KL.44. F.2180. When the complainant drove the car, there was no sufficient pulling for the vehicle compared to the same model vehicles.
When the vehicle was brought before the second opposite party for service on 5.10.2018 the complainant reported about the performance of the vehicle. The Service Manager and sales manager informed the complainant that they will inform the matter to the Honda company. The complainant also intimated the matter to the CEO and Regional Manager of the First opposite party.
On 10/10/2018 the vehicle was inspected by the Engineer of the first opposite party. The Engineer demanded the petitioner to drive the car. When the
complainant had driven the car in the presence of the Engineer through a road having pitches, the vehicle had no pulling even after applying half clutch and acceleration simultaneously. Then the Regional Manager had driven the vehicle and he also failed. At that time the Regional area Manager, Regional Manager of the first opposite party and service Manager of the second opposite party were present. They said that it was due to the driving method of the petitioner and the problem will be cured when the vehicle covered some more kilometers.
The complainant sent email complaint to the first opposite stating all the grievances. The complainant had faced problems while driving the car and all the problems were intimated to the CEO and the customer care of the first opposite party. But no positive replay was received from the opposite parties.
The complainant filed a petition before the Kothamangalam Police station and on the request of the Circle Inspector of Police, the Motor vehicle Inspector, Joint RTO office Kothamangalam conducted the inspection of the vehicle in the presence of the executives of the second opposite party and the complainant. The MVI reported that the use of the vehicle in such a condition in public road may cause accidents.
The vehicle is having manufacturing defect which cannot be cured through
repairing. The vehicle is having 3-year normal warranty and 2-year additional warranty. But the opposite parties have not even acted on warranty conditions. The act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service. By selling a vehicle having manufacturing defect the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed for getting a replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle in the same segment or for refund of the amount spent for the purchase of the vehicle and with compensation.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows. The vehicle is not
defective, inherently or otherwise. The complainant has made irrational allegations stating that the vehicle has no pulling in steep and or patchy roads. The relationship between first opposite party and the second opposite party is purely on principal-to-principal basis and each party is responsible for its own actions. The second opposite party is providing ancillary and aftersales service to the customers. Only in the case of manufacturing defect the first opposite party required to meet its obligations.
There is no manufacturing defect in the car. It is for the complainant to prove
with cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an
expert in automobile/mechanical engineering that the vehicle suffers from
inherent manufacturing defect.
The engineer of the first opposite party and the service manager of the second opposite party had communicated to the complainant that the alleged
problem of pulling may occur due to road conditions, driving habits, improper
tire pressure etc.
The MVI has based his alleged findings merely on the physical observations of the vehicle and the information received from the complainant. The report of the MVI has no evidentiary value. The allegation that a used vehicle has been sold to the complainant is wrong and denied. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
The version of the second opposite party is as follows. As soon as the complaint regarding the less pulling of the vehicle was submitted, the second opposite party had checked the vehicle and its performance with the help of Diagnostic tools as per the specifications of the first opposite party. After thorough examination no complaints were found and was updated to the complainant but he was not ready to accept the report. A joint test drive was provided and convinced the complainant regarding the nonexistence of the complaint as alleged by him. The complainant was updated that the vehicle was designed with more powerful components and features for getting more mileage to the vehicle.
The issue was submitted before the first opposite party and was arranged the examination of the vehicle with officials of the first opposite party in the presence of the complainant on 10.10. 2018.After examination the first opposite party also had certified the non-existence of pulling problem as claimed by the complainant. A joint test drive was conducted with officials of first opposite party and the complainant was convinced that his driving methodology was causing the alleged inconveniences and the same is not having any connection with the mechanical performance of the vehicle.
The vehicle is not having any kinds of defects or manufacturing defects as
mentioned by the complainant. The complainant was provided with all requirements of after sale service strictly following the guidelines of the manufacturer. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought in the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A15. An Expert Commissioner was appointed for the examination of the vehicle. The Expert Commissioner was examined as PW1 and the commission
report was marked as Exhibit C1.
The Second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B1 to B3. The first opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B4 and B5.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the
part of the opposite parties?
(2) If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider points 1 and 2 together.
Ongoing through the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the
complainant had purchased a Honda Amaze 12 VXMT, I-VTEC BS IV vehicle
from the second opposite party on 11/09/2018.The on-road price of the vehicle was Rs 7,72,499/-. The said vehicle with Engine Number L12B44019600 and Chassis Number MAKDF556GJ4004928 was registered in Number KL-44-F- 2180 before Joint RTO, Kothamangalam on 17/09/2018.
Ext A1 is the Copy of the RC Book of the vehicle KL-44-F-2180 AMAZE 1.2 VX MT(i-VTEC) BS-IV with date of delivery 11/09/2018 and date of registration
17/09/2018.The Engine number of the vehicle is L12B44019600 and chassis
number is MAKDF556GJ4004928.
Ext A2 is the Invoice issued by the second opposite party to the complainant stating the on-road price of the vehicle AMAZE 1.2 VX MT (i-VTEC) (2UA) to be Rs.7,72,499/-.
ExtA3 is the repair order dated 05/10/18 issued for the first free service by the second opposite party with remarks of Pulling less complaint.
Ext A5 is the Email complaint forwarded to the CEO of the first opposite party
on 08/10/2018 regarding the pickup issue, Driving problem in narrow and steep roads etc.
Ext A7 is the Tax invoice dated 10/10/18 issued by the second opposite party on 10/10/2018 with remarks that joint test drive done with customer. Further it is written that “only accepted, pulling less problem resolved or not, I will inform after 10 days”.
Ext A8 and ExtB2 is the copy of the Satisfaction note singed by the complainant
stating “the complaint with respect to LOWPICKUP has been addressed by the
first opposite party, place my complete satisfaction”. The complainant further remarked that on 10/10/2018 the problem is temporally solved and will inform
after 10 days of use whether the complaint is properly resolved or not. Ext C1 is the report of the Expert commissioner Tisson George Michael-M.Tech Automobile Egg. M-Tech Machine Design, Assistant Professor Department of Mechanical Egg. (Automobile) Amal Jyothi College of Engineering, Kanjirappally.
The Expert commissioner conducted the inspection on 13/02/2020 in the
presence of the complainant and representative of the second opposite party. The findings of the expert commissioner in the report are that
1.General performance of the vehicle.
The vehicle performance found satisfactory on level roads on full seating capacity.
2 Power Loss while climbing an incline.
The vehicle was tested on incline with three road conditions
a. On Mud Terrain with inclination.
The vehicle stalls moving above 2800 rpm and suddenly traction lost and
vehicle doesn’t climb the obstacle.
b. On stone paved Surface with slight inclination
The vehicle starts moving above 2300 rpm with partial clutch engagement,
which is not advised for safe driving. Even though the vehicle climbed the terrain, the acceleration dropped suddenly after the vehicle movement and it showed the symptoms of engine stalling which may result in accidents.
c. On tarmac with inclination
On tarmac also the engine stalls if tried to start from the incline. Vehicle only moves if acceleration is applied hardly and engine rpm is above 2200rpm.
3. Stalling of engine while restarting after a pothole from an incline
The performance of the vehicle between 2200 and 2400 rpm is not all satisfactory.
4.The brake is not performing up to the mark when engine acceleration falls. It is due to inadequate vacuum availability from engine to ensure smooth braking.
5 Driving style of the complainant,
The driving style of the complainant is overall good. No over throttling is
detected except on starting from incline.
The concluding opinion of the Expert commission is that the Vehicle is not
climbing an incline if engine rpm is below 2200 on tarmac.
The Vehicle has power loss on incline, and Brake is losing while engine rpm drops, The Service history shows customer report about low pulling at 1027
KM on odometer but no correction measures taken is indicated in the service history other than a diagnostic scan with scan tool.
On the basis of the above discussed evidence, it is clear that after taking delivery of the vehicle on 11/09/2018 the complainant vide Ext A3 reported the problem of less pulling of the vehicle to the second opposite party at the time of first free service on 5/10/18.
The complainant had reported vide ExtA5 Email complaint dated 08/10/2018 about the Pickup issue and driving problem in narrow and steep roads etc. to the CEO of the first opposite party and requesting to rectify the issues or to replace with a new car.
The complaint of less pulling was reported before second opposite party vide Ext A6 on 10/10/18. A Joint Test drive was done on 10/10/2018 as per Ext A7. From Ext.A7 we see that the complainant took delivery of the vehicle with endorsement that he would report whether the complaint is rectified or not?
Ext A8 and Ext B2 is the satisfaction note given by the complainant. In Ext A8 and Ext B2 it is stated that the complaint with respect to Low pick up has been addressed by the second opposite party. The complainant further remarked in Ext A8 and Ext B2 that he is not sure whether the complaint is properly resolved or not, and will inform after 10 days that the complaint is resolved or not”.
From the above discussed evidence, it is clear that the vehicle was showing
less pulling and the matter was reported to the opposite parties repeatedly by the complainant. Even though the second opposite party addressed the complaint and conducted a joint test drive no action was taken to resolve the problem of less pulling of the vehicle.
The expert commissioner inspected the vehicle in the presence of the complainant and second opposite party. Ext C1 report of the expert commissioner categorically stated that the Vehicle is not climbing on incline if engine rpm is below 2200 on tarmac if starting from the incline, Vehicle has power loss on incline, Brake is losing while engine rpm drops.
The expert commissioner further deposed that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects.
From the above findings it is clear that the vehicle sold to the complainant by the second opposite party and manufactured by the first opposite party is having inherent manufacturing defects. The opposite parties failed to take prompt action to resolve the reported complaints of the vehicle within the warranty period. This act on the part of the opposite parties is deficiency in their service. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
- The first opposite party is directed to replace the Honda Amaze 1.2 VXMT BS IV vehicle with Engine NoL12B44019600 and chassis number MAKDF556GJ4004928 with a new vehicle of the same category to the complainant with warranty in alternate or to refund an amount of Rs.7,72,499/-to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
- The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.50,000/0- as compensation for
the mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.5000/- for this litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If not complied as directed the amounts will carry 9% interest per annum till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of December, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Tisson George Michael
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of RC (KL-44-F 2180)
A2 – Copy of invoice issued by Vision Honda – Kottayam
A3 – Copy of job card
A4 –Copy of report of MVI with letter dtd.05-11-18
A5 – Copy of e-mail by complainant to opposite party
A6 –Copy of repair order
A7 – Copy of invoice dtd.10-10-18 by opposite party
A8 – Copy of satisfaction note dtd.10-10-18
A9- Copy of complaint dtd.26-10-18 by complainant to SHO, Kothamangalam
A10 –Copy of letter dtd.26-10-18 by Police Inspector, Kothamangalam to
Motor Vehicle Inspector, Joint RTO, Kothamangalam
A11-Copy of letter dtd.05-11-2018 by Joint RTO, Kothamangalam to Police Inspector, Kothamangalam
A12- Letter dtd.21-11-18 by complainant to opposite party
A13- Copy of invoice dtd.13-08-2020 by Pothen Vehicles & Services
A14- Copy of letter dtd.04-08-19 by complainant to SHO, Kothamangalam
A15- Copy of invoice dtd.27-03-21 by Pothen Vehicles
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of repair order by opposite party
B2 – Satisfaction note dtd.10-10-18
B3 – Letter dtd.02-02-19 by RTO, Kottayam to complainant
B4 – Authorisation letter dtd.17-06-22
B5 –Dealership agreement
Commission Report
C1 - Inspection Report by Tisson George Michael
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
