DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.876 of 2008
Sri Brij Mohan Tripathi,
S/o Sri Goverdhan Tripathi,
R/o 21/60, Indira Nagar,
Lucknow. ……Complainant
Versus
1. The Marketing Manager,
Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.1, Sector 3/M.T. Menesar,
District Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. The Manager,
Beear Honda,
9- Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow. .......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for directing the OPs to change the scooter by new one or to pay the cost of the scooter with interest and payment of conveyance of Rs.1,000.00, compensation and cost of litigation.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he purchased a two wheeler Honda Active of Rs.40,880.00 on 10.07.2007 from the OP No.2 who is the dealer of OP No.1. It was assured that if any defect occurs in the vehicle it will be removed properly and vehicle will remain in good running condition and there will be no major problems in the vehicle. Just after the purchase of the vehicle, the scooter started giving problem and it was very difficult to start it. It was shown at the service agency of the dealer many times but the defect could not be removed and according to the Company manual they
-2-
promised a free of cost service of the vehicle but the Complainant has been charged more than Rs.1,000.00. There had been wobbling problem during the driving of the scooter and the back wheel of the scooter did not maintain the required air pressure and frequent air leakage always remained. The head light and self are also not working properly since the purchase of the vehicle. The average mileage of scooter is also not at par as recommended by the Company. On 14.08.2008 a notice was given to the OP No.1. The brakes of scooter are also not strong enough to control the moving vehicle. It has also caused mental and physical harassment and also caused economic loss due to defective engine and other parts of the scooter and the scooter was not as per standard promised and the OPs have committed a breach of agreement and trust of the Complainant, hence this complaint.
Notice was issued to the OP No.1 but despite time taken no WS was filed, hence the opportunity to file WS was closed and the case proceeded exparte against OP No.1 vide orders passed on 17.10.2014.
The OP No.2 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant was made aware of the terms and conditions of the warranty at the time of purchase of the scooter. Whenever any complaint regarding the scooter was made by the Complainant then it was attended by the OP No.2 and the Complainant was satisfied at the time of taking the delivery of the scooter. The vehicle in question is a self start scooter and there is no need for using the kick for starting a scooter and it has not been made clear by the Complainant as to why he was using the kick. At the time of the free service the Complainant had not made any complaint regarding the kick and it was only told by him to the OP No.2 to check the kick but no complaint regarding kick was made. It is wrong on the part of the Complainant to say that at the time of free service Rs.1,000.00 was realised for the free service whereas
-3-
the service was absolutely free and only for the engine oil the amount was realised. With regard to the air leaking out of the wheel the Complainant was told to contact the service centre of the tyre company. The Complainant was not satisfied about the vehicle’s mileage but it has not been told by him as to what was the average being given by the scooter. The brakes of the scooter are working properly. There is no defect in the scooter, engine and its parts and the scooter is working normally. The Complainant has become apprehensive of defect in the scooter or with the object of getting a new scooter in place of the old one the Complainant is making illegal demand. There is no manufacturing defect in the scooter and any small problem arising in the scooter was taken care of the OP No.2. In May, 2008 the Complainant’s scooter met with an accident and the Complainant had brought the scooter on 16.08.2008 in the workshop of the OP No.2 where it was repaired by the OP No.2. Since that accident the Complainant is knowingly telling problems of kick and starting problem and made a demand to the OP No.1 for replacing the scooter and he has filed this complaint on false and untrue facts with the purpose of getting a new scooter in the place of old accidented scooter. There is no expert opinion regarding the defects spelt out by the Complainant, therefore this complaint deserves to be dismissed.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit and 4 papers. The OP No.2 has filed the affidavit of Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Director, Premium Car Sales Ltd. and 4 annexures with the WS.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant’s scooter was giving a lot of problems and they could not be properly addressed by the OPs or not?
In this regard, the contention of the Complainant is that
-4-
since the purchase of the scooter it has been giving problems even though the defects could not be removed entirely but he was charged more than Rs.1,000.00 for the repairs. There was wobbling problem in the scooter and the brakes were also not working properly and these defects could not be entirely removed by the OPs. The Complainant has filed a notice sent to the OP No.1 spelling out the problems of the scooter as is evident from the photocopy of the letter dated 30.01.2008 filed by the Complainant. When the defects were not removed then a legal notice was also sent to the OPs. The Complainant has also supported his version on oath by filing an affidavit. The OP No.2 had taken the stand that whenever there was any defect pointed out by the Complainant to the OP No.2 then it was properly taken care of and the defect was removed and in support of that the OP No.2 has filed photocopies of the job cards dated 09.08.2007 as annexure No.1, 18.11.2007 as annexure No.2, 15.03.2008 as annexure No.3 and 16.05.2008 as annexure No.4. From these documents the OP No.2 has tried to show that whenever the scooter was brought to the service centre its defects were removed. But from these documents it transpires that there were complaints of engine noise, body noise, kick check, mudguard check, handle check, kick jam check and starting problem. Thus, from these documents it is clear that the problems arose right from the beginning but from these documents it is not clear that the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Most of the problems are the ones which have been pointed out by the Complainant in his complaint such as the starting problem, the kick problem etc. If the problems had been removed to the satisfaction of the Complainant then there was no reason for the Complainant to unnecessarily rake up the problems. The OP No.2 has tried to dilute the problem of the kick by saying that the scooter is self start scooter, hence there was no necessity for the Complainant to use the kick. Now,
-5-
here a question arises obviously that why a person would use the kick when there is the facility of the self start and the reason is simple that when the vehicle is not being started by the use of the self then the person has to use the kick and that is why there is the provision of the kick in the scooter despite the scooter being a self start one. Therefore, this contention of the OP No.2 that it is not clear as to why the Complainant was using the kick when it was a self start scooter is, pretty ridiculous. This also shows that the problem of the Complainant was not solved to his satisfaction and that is why this sort of questioning by the OP No.2 regarding the use of the kick. The Complainant’s statement that the scooter was having a starting problem is supported by the document purchased by the OP No.2 themselves. Another contention of the Complainant that the air used to get leaked out of the wheel gets support from the statement of the OP No.2 in the WS that regarding that problem the OP No.2 had asked the Complainant to contact the service centre of the tyre company. The problem of wobbling in the vehicle when it is driven by the Complainant shows that there is some problem in the scooter which could not be repaired properly by the OP No.2. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Complainant’s scooter was giving a number of problems which could not be properly taken care of by the OP No.2 even though the scooter was given for repairs many a times. However, all these defects do not make out a strong case of the scooter being a defective one but certainly a case that the scooter of the Complainant has not been properly repaired by the OP No.2, therefore the OP No.2 has committed deficiency in service in not properly repairing the scooter. The OP No.2 has taken the stand that the Complainant’s scooter met with an accident and the problems started cropping up since then only but there is no evidence to show that the scooter of the Complainant met with an accident and hence the problems
-6-
started. The fact remains that the OP No.2 did not properly repair the scooter to the satisfaction of the Complainant, therefore the Complainant has to suffer a lot. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get the scooter repaired fully free of cost and is also entitled to compensation for the physical and mental harassment caused to him. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to repair the scooter of the Complainant fully free of cost.
The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees Four Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President Dated: 16 June, 2015
