Delhi

East Delhi

CC/343/2018

CHANDER BHAN BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HONDA CARS - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.343/2018

 

1	Chander Bhan Bansal R/o A-40, 1st Floor, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110092	….Complainant
Versus
1	Honda Cars India Limited Through its Director, Having Registered Office At;- Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201306	……OP1
2	Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd. Dealer Office At: Plot No. 1, Patparganj Industrial Complex, Opposite Mother Dairy, Delhi, India Through Its Director/ Authorized Representative	……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 30.10.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 27.07.2022

Judgment Passed on: 28.07.2022

                       

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order I shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant with respect to deficiency in service by the OPs in not repairing the car within time. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Car i.e. Honda BR- V 1.5 VX MT (1 = VTEC) on 11.04.2018 from OP2 for a total sum of RS. 11,83,388/- and when he was going to Vrindavan on 27.07.2018 there was some water logging and while passing through the same the car stopped with some oil leakage. Thereafter he contacted the staff of OP over telephone and he was advised to bring the car at service centre of OP1.  The Complainant had to spent an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for bringing the car to the Service Station and he was issued a repairing sheet dated 27.07.2018 and was assured that the surveyor would visit on 28.07.2018. The surveyor Sh. Rajiv Batra visited the vehicle on 28.07.2018 itself and thereafter Complainant was informed that apart from the defect already noticed, the Engine of the car was also got damaged and for that Mr. Batra the Surveyor has to visit again, who visited on 08.08.2018 and even approved the  replacement of ½ engine assembly of the car, Thereafter, the complainant made various calls but his car was not repaired and then the complainant wrote a letter/email dated 16.08.2018 to the Head Office as well as Customer Care.  He then was informed that built up engine assembly has not been received from the company i.e. the manufacturer and OP2 transferred the entire burden on manufacturer company i.e. OP1 and this continued and various emails were exchanged.  He received an email dated 07.09.2018 stating that the engine assembly has not been ready by the company so far and the complainant had to wait further and ultimately he had to issue a legal notice to the OPs dated 08.09.2018 and thereafter he received an email on 13.09.2018 stating that the delivery of the vehicle has been rescheduled for 15.09.2018.  Thereafter the complainant visited OP2 on 15.09.2018 which was initially scheduled for 07.09.2018 but Car was not given on 15.09.2018 and  ultimately the Complainant was handed over the vehicle after repair on 17.09.2018 only i.e. after a period of about 50 days and it is stated that since the OP had  failed miserably to satisfy the complainant/consumer by not changing their vehicle with the new vehicle or even not repairing the same within a reasonable time, complainant has filed the present case thereby claiming Rs.5 lakhs as compensation with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., Rs.1 lakhs with interest for making alternate arrangement at the last moment while coming back to Delhi from Vrindavan, and also for hiring vehicle for those 50 days, and Rs. 50,000/- as legal charges and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be allowed. 
3. The OPs have filed their reply. OP1 inter alia in her Written Statement has taken preliminary objection that the relationship between the OP1 and OP2 is on principal to principal basis and ancillary services ‘after the sale’ of the vehicle are exclusively provided by authorized dealer  i.e. OP2 and not by OP1 and each OP is liable for its own respective action and none assumes liability for the action of others.  Any grievances with respect to deficiency in service/unfair trade practices can be made against OP2 only and therefore OP1 is not liable  with respect to any deficiency as alleged.  Further, it is stated that there is no privity of contract in between the complainant and OP1, as the Car has neither been sold  by OP1, to the complainant nor it has rendered any services to him and it is only a car manufacturer, and once the car is manufactured, same is sold to the authorized dealer and then dealer sells those cars to the customers as per their own marketing strategies.  The responsibility with respect to servicing/repairing of the car is solely with the authorized dealer of the company of the manufacturer and even otherwise complainant has failed to disclose any defect or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP1.  Further, it is submitted that warranty offered on every vehicle, manufactured by OP1 is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty and if the damage is caused to the vehicle by some external factor and not due to manufacturing defect then the OP1 is not liable for any deficiency.  Complaint is bad for not making Insurance company as a party otherwise also this claim involves several disputed questions of fact and law, the appropriate Forum is Civil Court and not this forum.  The complaint of the complainant is baseless as no expert opinion in the form of evidence has been notified.  This Commission even otherwise does not have territorial jurisdiction in the present case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  On merit, the contents of preliminary objection are reiterated.  It is submitted that vehicle of the complainant was driven carelessly in deep water logging due to which the vehicle suffered from hydrostatic loss and then the repeated attempts to start the vehicle in that condition by complainant, damaged the internal part of the engine and cannot be termed as manufacturing defect and answering respondent would have been liable, that too, within the warranty period with respect to manufacturing defect if at all found in the car.  The writing of email by the complainant to OP1 are denied.  It is further submitted that as far as supply of material is concerned, the answering respondent vide email dated 07.09.2018 had specifically mentioned that the delay has happened as the sub assembly is being manufactured exclusively and on special request however in general practice the OP1 only provides child part of the engine  and assembly is done at out dealership by trained technicians at the dealership and to cater the need for such assembly the production line is scheduled with respect to part availability, back log, previous orders and so many other internal factors and OP1 wish to assure that their team is in constant interaction with relevant need and do not expect such assembly to be available in next three to five working days.  It is denied that answering respondent chose to remain silent and it is stated that all the emails were duly replied.  Allegation with respect to delay are denied and it is submitted that delay is on the part of OP2.  The prayer clause is denied.  The claim is stated to be not maintainable against OP1 as there is no cause of action against them.  The claim otherwise is quite exaggerated.  Therefore, the complaint of the Complainant be dismissed.  
4. OP2 has filed its written statement stating therein that present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, vaxacious, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP2.  The deficiency,  if any, is of the OP1 who is the manufacturer of Honda Cars and OP2 is one of the authorized dealer of OP1 and its main functions are to sell and service the cars which are manufactured by OP1.  It is further submitted that as per the Complainant himself the car was driven in water logged area which led to damage the chamber of the car and leakage of engine oil and in these circumstances since the car of the Complainant was damaged due to negligent driving, the warranty cannot be applicable and hence the claim of the Complainant to get the car replaced during warranty is ill-founded and not maintainable.  OP2 is only a dealer and not the manufacturer of the car, and therefore, the warranty if any, is given by the manufacturer and not by the dealer and thereafter a detailed chronology of events have been mentioned i.e. as to when the car was brought and when it wrote various letters and emails to OP2 for supply of parts, when the parts were supplied and the vehicle was handed over, thereby trying to explain that the deficiency if any was on the part of OP1 and not by OP2 as alleged.  The OP2 was in touch with the OP1 for supply of engine assembly but since the part was not available it took some time to provide it and there had been no intentional delay on the part of OP2 and the delay has been occasioned on the account of the reason as explained herein above and it is prayed that complaint of the Complainant against OP2 be dismissed.  Rejoinder was filed by the complainant to the reply of OP1 and OP2 in which  he has denied the facts of the written statement of OP1 as well as of OP2 and has reiterated the contents of complaint, it is specifically denied by the complainant that he drove the vehicle in deep water logging area as alleged. 

The Petitioner thereafter filed his evidences and exhibited the following:

1. The copy of the bill of new vehicle Honda BR-V 1.5 VX MT (I=VTEC) with the payment receipt as EX CW1/1 and CW-1/2 colly. 
2. Copies of the copy of letter dated 16.08.2018 and copy of e-mail sent to the Head Office of OPS are as EX CW-1/3 and CW-1/4 respectively. 
3. Copies of the mail dated 16.08.2018 acknowledging the complaint and reply mail dated 18.08.2018 are as EX CW-1/5 and CW-1/6 respectively. 
4. The copy of the mail dated 7.9.2018 received at 1.45 PM is as EX CW-1/7.
5. The copy of legal Notice dated 08.09.2018 is as EX CW-1/8.
6. The copy of Mail daed 13.09.2018 is as EX CW-1/9.
7. The Copy of Bill and receipt are as EX CW-1/10 and CW-1/11. 

5. OP1 has not filed its evidence and OP2 has filed affidavit of two witnesses, one of Sh. Kamal Manchanda, Company Secretary and Manager –Legal with Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd. and another of Sh. Col. V.B.L. Pachauri, Director with Capital Cars Pvt .Ltd. in the form of affidavits and has exhibited the following:

1. The copy of Claim Form as EX RW2/1
2. The copy of Order Form along with relevant Email as EX RW2/2 (Colly).
3. The copy of Reminder Email sent by OP2 to OP1 for supply of part as EX RW2/3.
4. OP2’s replies to the above mail and tentatively fixes 07.09.2018 as the date for delivery of the car on the assurance given by OP1 that the part shall be supplied by 27.08.2018 as EX RW2/4. 
5. The copy of relevant Emails about reminder sent to OP1 by OP2 for supply of the part are as EX RW2/5.
6. The copy of Email of OP1 to complainant explaining the delay in receiving the car is as EX RW2/6. 
7. The copy of Email sent by OP2 to OP1 on 11.09.2018 and 12.09.2018 for supply of the part is as EX RW2/7 (Colly).
8. The copy of invoice of OP1 for supply of part to OP2 as EX RW2/8. 
9. The copy of material receipt note of OP2 dated 15.09.2018 as EX RW2/9. 

6. After going through the record the dispute in nutshell is that the Complainant purchased the Car from OP2 as manufactured by OP1 which somehow got damaged, it was brought to the service centre of OP2 for the purpose of repair till warranty period and it took more than required time to get it repaired.  The OP2 states that the delay was on account of not supplying the requested spare parts by the OP1, whereas OP1 states that the delay cannot be attributed to it for the reason that after sale, the entire service aspects of the vehicle are taken care of by the dealer. 
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.  Admittedly the delay is there.  It is also admitted fact on record that dealer could not have repaired the vehicle in absence of parts to be provided by the manufacturer OP1.  The blame game of shifting liability is on and in the process there is a delay of about 50 days and if not 50 days, and if the natural period for service/repairing car is to be excluded then also there is delay of about 30-35 days.  The Complainant is claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 05 Lakhs for causing delay and that Rs. 05 Lakh for Mental Pain, Agony and Stress.  Admittedly there is no manufacturing defect alleged or proved nor there is any specific relief with respect to replacement of the vehicle.  Further, also there is no substantive complaint after the vehicle is repaired till date, therefore, the prayer with respect to giving higher compensation to the extent of Rs. 05 Lakhs towards delay or towards stress etc. cannot be accepted. 
8. Coming to the aspect of liability particularly keeping in view the contention of principal to principal relationship this court is not convinced with the argument that the manufacturer had no role once the vehicle is sold.  The manufacturer appoints its distributors/dealers and service station centres after making all necessary queries so as to ascertain itself as to whether the dealers who would be appointed or the service centre which would be so authorized, would be able to service their vehicle through competent engineers in the field and by that assessment they appoint only such dealers who are competent to give proper ‘after sale service’ to the vehicle.  Not only this the authorized dealer are specifically barred to use spurious spare parts in the vehicle, meaning thereby the spare parts if any would be and has to be supplied by the manufacturer OP1 itself.  Therefore, apart from the concept of playing with the words both the OPs are agent to each other for the purpose of selling the product/vehicle to the general public so as to earn profit.  If the vehicle would not be sold and if appropriate warranty would not be granted by the manufacturer, the dealer would not be in a position to give warranty on behalf of the manufacturer.  Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that both the OPs are although have a principal to principal relationship yet are agent of each other and keeping in view that OP2 could have repaired the vehicle with genuine spare parts only if the OP1 would have supplied the spare parts in time, the Commission is of the opinion that the liability of both the OPs are joint and several. 
9. Now coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation.  The Complainant has not filed any document to show that he spent Rs.15000/- for towing the car or he spent Rs.50,000/- for hiring the service of another car for 50 days not he has filed any document to show w.r.t. pecuniary loss he suffered but definitely some loss must have occurred to the complainant apart from mental pain, stress and harassment.  Therefore, keeping in view all the facts the Commission hereby orders as follows:-

1. Rs.50,000/- compensation to be paid jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. w.r.t. date of filing complaint. 
2. Rs.15,000/- as Litigation expenses. 
3. Rs.10,000/- towards towing the car from Vrindavan to Delhi. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 28.07.2022

DELHI

 

(On leave) (Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President