Kerala

Idukki

CC/31/2018

Fr.Sebastain Kochupurackal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.P A Suhas

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 15.2.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of August, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.31/2018

Between

Complainant : Fr. Sebastian Kochupura,

Director of Highrange Development

Society,

Manippara P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: P.A. Suhas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter

India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.1, Sector 3,

IMT Manesar District, Gurgaon,

Hariyana – 122 050.

2. Muthoot Motors,

35/177A, Near KSEB,

Ernakulam – Aluva Road,

Palarivattam, Kochi – 682 025.

3. Muthoot Honda,

Thannickal Buildings,

Near KSRTC Sub Depo,

Vellayamkudy Road, Kattappana.

(Both by Adv: Gem Korason)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

The complainant purchased a motor bike from 3^rd opposite party, manufactured by 1^st opposite party (Honda Shine Disc Model) on 7.12.2017 by paying Rs.77000/-. It is temporarily registered as KL-07-CP Temp 2998 4471. From the 1^st day of its purchase, the complainant noticed a bend on the handle of the bike, when he used it. Immediately, he intimated this defect to 3^rd opposite party and entrusted the same to 3^rd opposite party for curing the defect. The same complaint is persisted,

(cont....2)

- 2 -

when the vehicle was returned to the complainant. Eventhough the vehicle was entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party, 3^rd opposite party failed to cure the bend of the handle of the vehicle. Hence the complainant stated that this defect cannot be cured, since it is a manufacturing defect and hence the vehicle is not fit for use. Due to defect in this vehicle, complainant cannot be used and he entrusted the vehicle to 3^rd opposite party and it is kept in their workshop. The complainant further averred that since the opposite parties were not turned up to cure the defect, the complainant forced to send a legal notice to the opposite parties. Evenafter the acceptance of this notice, opposite parties has not cared to redress the grievances of the complainant. Under the above circumstances, complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the 1^st opposite party to replace the vehicle with a defect free new one or else direct the opposite parties to return the purchase price of the vehicle along with Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties 2 and 3 entered appearance and filed detailed reply version by admitting the sale of the vehicle in question on 5.12.2017, to the complainant. Opposite parties further contended that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the complainant and his representatives made thorough inspection of the bike and after fully satisfied by them, they took delivery of the vehicle. But the representative of the complainant brought back the bike to the showroom and reported a complaint regarding its handle end. The opposite parties noticed minor scratches on the end weight which happened subsequent to the sale of the vehicle and normally happen as a result of fall of the vehicle. Thereafter the spare has been replaced by the opposite party and returned the vehicle after curing its defect. After two days, on 8.12.2017, the complainant approached the sales team of opposite party and reported the same complaint. Eventhough the service team of opposite party could not locate any defect, still t he handle bar was once again replaced as insisted by the agents of the complainant, for satisfying the complainant. The complainant raised the same complaint again and the opposite party's service team again replaced the handle on 11.12.2017, T-stem and full shock absorber assembly as good will gesture. Thereafter on 18.12.2017, the opposite parties' Thodupuzha service-in-charge and his team went and inspected the vehicle and reported that they could not locate any defect on

(cont....3)

- 3 -

this vehicle. As a special case, the opposite party took the support from area-in-charge-Honda Motors and took the test drive on 21.12.2017 and could not find or noted any defect. Hence the opposite parties had returned the vehicle to the complainant.

 

Opposite parties further contended that, the minor defects alleged by the complainant were cured properly at free of cost by mechanically skilled staff of opposite parties to the satisfaction of the complainant. The bike had been taken to the service centre multiple times because of careless use, will not amount to manufacturing defect. The performance of the vehicle is better than stated by the company. The contention of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service are false and the intention of the complainant to make unlawful gain from the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

 

From the part of 1^st opposite party, no written version is filed.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit. Complainant and the expert commissioner who was appointed on the written request of the complainant were examined as PWs1 and 2. The documents produced by the complainant such as copy of legal notice dated 1.1.2018, postal receipt, AD Card and commission report are marked as Exts.P1 to P4 respectively.

 

From the side of opposite parties, one Renjumon Joseph, service-in-charge of 3^rd opposite party examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked. Ext.R1 is the diagram of handle pipe and steering stem of the hero honda bike. Ext.R2 is the copy of photographs of the subject matter bike. Ext.R3 is the details of sale of Hero Honda Shine Sp Disc model bikes from November 2017 to December 2018.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

(cont....4)

- 4 -

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels for both the parties and had gone through the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a bike discussed above from 3^rd opposite party manufactured by 1^st opposite party, on 4.12.2017 and on the same day itself, due to some defects, it was entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party. As per the reply version of 3^rd opposite party, on 5.12.2017, 8.12.2017, 11.12.2017, 18.12.2017 and 21.12.2017, the vehicle was produced before them for the defect of bend in the handle. As per the reply version 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, they replaced the handle of the vehicle two times, eventhough there was no defect to the handle as alleged, as a goodwill guster, at last on 11.12.2017, they replaced handle bar, T-stem and full shock absorber assembly. Thereafter also the complainant said that the defect of the vehicle is persisting, the opposite parties inspected the vehicle with the support of the area-in-charge. After inspection of the HMSI team could not noticed any defect. As the parties admitted, the vehicle is in the service centre of 3^rd opposite party from 21.12.2017 onwards. It is also admitted fact that, the complainant purchased the vehicle after paying Rs.77,000/- in cash and he cannot use the vehicle for a single day. The vehicle was temporarily registered in the name of the complainant. Since the vehicle is entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party, it was not permanently registered till.

 

The version of the opposite party in this regard is that, the vehicle was given to the complainant in a perfect condition after satisfying the complainant and his representatives who were present at there. If any damages caused to the vehicle, that may be due to the accident or improper use. Eventhough there was no defect noticed to the vehicle, the opposite parties replaced the handle bar more than two times, along with T-stem and shock absorber assembly. For substantiating their plea, opposite party has not produced any evidence to convince the Forum that, whether they done all efforts to cure the defect of the vehicle in question. It is also very pertinent to note that, evenafter the repeated demand of the complainant to cure the defects of the vehicle, opposite party has not took any effort to intimate the matter to the manufacturer of the vehicle.

 

From the records, it is very clear that from the next day onwards of purchase of the vehicle itself, the complainant approached the opposite

(cont....5)

- 5 -

parties so many times, that is, within one month, he approached the opposite party more than 5 times. At last the complainant send a legal notice to the opposite party on 1.1.2018. Evenafter the acceptance of the notice, opposite party has not cared to cure the defect or failed to initiate any steps to intimate the matter to the manufacturer to redress the grievances of the customer.

 

To substantiate the plea of defect of the vehicle, an expert commissioner was appointed by this Forum on request of the complainant. After thorough inspection, the expert commissioner, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, filed Ext.P4 report. In this report, he categorically stated that, he noticed 5 mm bend on the handle of the vehicle and it is due to defect in fitment on the part named as holder handle under. This is due to deficiency on the part of the service centre (Point No.10 of the commission report).

 

From the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3, they produced the diagram of handle of the alleged bike and its photographs etc. But it is quiet surprising that opposite parties have not produced any job cards, eventhough they admitted that they inspected the vehicle so many times and replaced its handle bar etc. This act of the opposite parties created a doubt in our mind, because opposite parties failed to do two things. One is the opposite parties miserably failed to intimate the matter to the manufacturer in order to shift their liability, since the complainant is insisting to replace the vehicle to a defect free new vehicle. The second thing is that opposite party failed to produce the service records of the vehicle.

 

Eventhough opposite parties 2 and 3 are not intimated the matter to the 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer of the vehicle, 1^st opposite party is duty bound to response the notice which is issued to them from this office. Evenafter the acceptance of notice and copy of the complaint, 1^st opposite party has not cared to acted upon it or wilfully neglected the process from this Forum.

 

From the records, it is seen that the complainant himself admitted that opposite parties 2 and 3 inspected the vehicle and replaced the handle

(cont....6)

- 6 -

bar and related spares and attended the complaint each and every time. But the defect of the vehicle persisted and it is due to the manufacturing defect alone. The apt person to answer this is the 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer. 1^st opposite party is legally bound to counter the allegation against them with clear and cogent evidence. But 1^st opposite party failed to do so, at least to file a written objection to the allegation levelled against them. It is the bounden duty of the 1^st opposite party to establish the vehicle in question or having no manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint. This act of the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in their service.

 

It is further confirmed by the expert that the defect persisting to the alleged vehicle is due to the defective fitment of the handle bar under handle holder and it is solely due to the deficiency on the part of the service centre. In the light of the observation of Ext.P4 commission report, the Forum is of a considered view that, the service rendered by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant is defective and opposite party miserable failed to produce any clear and cogent evidence to rebut the contention in the expert opinion as well as the averement in the complaint.

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are established and the Forum directs the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one of the same model, or repay the purchase price with 6% interest from the date of this petition, since it is evident that the defect of the vehicle cannot be cured and further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant, jointly. The direction shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of August, 2019

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

(cont......7)

- 7 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Fr. Sebastian Kochupurackal.

PW2 - Museeb P.S.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Renjmon Joseph.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of legal notice dated 1.1.2018.

Ext.P2 - postal receipt,

Ext.P3 - AD Card and commission report

Ext.P2 - Commission Report.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - diagram of handle pipe and steering stem of the hero honda bike.

Ext.R2 - copy of photographs of the subject matter bike.

Ext.R3 - details of sale of Hero Honda Shine Sp Disc model bikes from

November 2017 to December 2018.

 

 

Forwarded by order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT