Date of filing:22.10.2013
Date of Disposal:20.5.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2014.
C.C.No.174 OF 2013.
Between :
Laam Siva Rama Krishna Gopal, S/o Ranga Rao, Hindu, 25 years, A.C. Mechanic, R/o Kanakadurga Air Conditioner Works, D.No.58-6-39/B, Chennu Pitchaiah Street, Patamata, Vijayawada – 10, Krishna District.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Private Ltd., Rep., by its Manager/Authorized Person, Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon District (Haryana) –122050.
2. Sri Kanakadurga Auto Mobiles Ltd., rep., by its Proprietor,D.No.14-247, ChinnaGandhi Bomma Centre, Bus Stand Road, Nuzvid – 521 201, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. Mitra Motors Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Proprietor, D.No.32-26-126/11, Oplposite BSNL Bhavan, Eluru Road, Chuttugunta, Vijayawada – 520 004, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 8.5.2014 in the presence of Sri M.Samba Siva Rao, Counsel for complainant and Sri V.Lakshmi Narayana, Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Sri T.Bhairraju, Counsel for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
- The complainant purchased Honda Dream Yuga motor cycle from the 2nd opposite party on 24.10.2012. But from the date of purchase itself the engine oil of the motor cycle has been oozing out from the head top core beading. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite party and handed over the vehicle to them to rectify the defect. The 3rd opposite party kept the vehicle two days with them for observation and returned the vehicle without rectifying the defect. The complainant observed some sound from crank and engine valves and also the battery of the vehicle is not working. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite parties 1 and 3 and requested to rectify the same. But neither of them responded to the request of the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties either to rectify the defect of the motor cycle or refund the cost of the same. On receipt of the said notice the opposite parties 2 and 3 approached the complainant and requested him to hand over the vehicle to them and promised to rectify the defects. Believing the same the complainant hand over the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party. As usual the 3rd opposite party kept the vehicle for three days and returned the vehicle stating that they rectified the defects. After riding the motor cycle for two days the complainant found same defects and the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects. The opposite parties cheated the complainant by returning the vehicle without rectifying the defects which is deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to provide a new motor cycle of Honda Unicorn or returning the cost of the same with interest at 36% per annum from the date of purchase, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.
- The 2nd opposite party filed its version and the 1st opposite party adopted the same. The 3rd opposite party also filed its version.
The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2:-
opposite parties 1 and 2 denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party admittedly in good condition. After purchase of the vehicle in the month of October, 2012 the complainant never visited the 2nd opposite party for periodical checkup. The 2nd opposite party received a notice from the complainant dated 18.6.2013. Immediately the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and the technical personnel of the 2nd opposite party verified the vehicle but there is no such problem as stated by the complainant in his notice. But in order to satisfy the customer the 2nd opposite party expressed his willingness to give service to the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party came to know through the notice dated 6.8.2013 that the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party for service. Opposite parties 1 to 3 providing good service to the complainant and the complainant in order to gain wrongfully filed the present complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite partied 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant while there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. The version of the 3rd opposite party:-
The 3rd opposite party submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 24.10.2012. He brought the vehicle to the workshop of the 3rd opposite party on 2.1.2013 for the first time with the speedo meter reading of 3,895 kms. The opposite party did not find from avail data as to the earlier services the vehicle underwent after the date of purchase and before it was brought to the service centre of the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party demanded the complainant to furnish the details of earlier service to the vehicle, but he did not furnish. The complainant pointed out engine oil leakage problem. The technicians of the service center has attended to the vehicle observed and noticed some outside material in order to head top which index that the vehicle was handled unauthorized technicians which is against the warranty. The technicians of the service centre carry out necessary repairs on deliver of the vehicle. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle by giving satisfaction note and he again brought the vehicle on 13.2.2013 with the speedo meter reading of 6080 kms which suggests that the vehicle moved 2,189 kms after this opposite party rendered service on2.1.2013. The complainant pointed out some routine minor problems and the engine oil leakage which were promptly attended to his satisfaction. Subsequently the complainant brought the vehicle on 25.2.2013 at 6,775 kms and on 14.5.2013 at 12,801 kms i.e., after a running of 6,100 kms and the said visits also the complainant pointed out engine oil using and routine minor problems which are of promptly attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is rendering prompt and quality services to the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. The 3rd opposite party received the legal notice dated 18.6.2013 got issued by the complainant the contents are not true yet to maintain a good customer relationship and also with a view to provide a best customer service the 3rd opposite party contacted the complainant through his advocate and brought the vehicle to the workshop. The vehicle was once again thoroughly checked up there is no defect in the vehicle as alleged except oozing engine oil from the head top core beading which is not a inherent or incurable defect or a manufacturing defect. The 3rd opposite party attended some miscellaneous works. The vehicle was with the 3rd opposite party from 4.7.2013 to 7.7.2013 and the complainant took deliver the vehicle after submitting his satisfaction note. A bill was prepared for Rs.2,174/- which the complainant required to pay and which is duly outstanding. Thereafter the 3rd opposite party received another notice dated 6.8.2013 with false allegations and claims. The 3rd opposite party got issued reply notice to the said legal notice. The complainant purchased Honda Dream Yuga motor cycle. In his legal notice dated 18.6.2010 he demanded for replacement of Honda Shine vehicle which is more expensive than the vehicle purchased by him. Again in the legal notice dated 6.8.2013 he demanded for Honda Unicorn vehicle which more expensive than the above two vehicles. In fact the place where the oozing problem is occurred can be easily tampered by any person. The complainant took the vehicle from the service center on 7.7.2013 by submitting his satisfaction note. Thereafter he did not make any complaint. With the relief of replacement of the vehicle with a new one is untenable and the complainant is not entitled for the said relief. As there is no defects whatsoever in the vehicle. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 24.10.2012 and it ran about 13,000 kms by 4.7.2013. Various service reports, both paid and free service would speak the fact that the vehicle has been of along with in a perfect running condition and the 3rd opposite party has been rendering effective services to the complainant throughout and all thorough to his satisfaction. The complainant did not furnish the particulars of the alleged senior mechanics whom he consulted. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party Sri A.Gopi Chand, Authorized Person gave his affidavit and no document is marked and on behalf of the 3rd opposite party Sri M.Madhusudhana Sarma, Director of the 3rd opposite party gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8.
5. Heard and perused.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite partiestowards the complainant in not rectifying the defects of the complainant’s vehicle?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
7. On perusing the material on hand the complainant purchased a Honda Dream Yuga motor cycle from the 2nd opposite party on 24.10.2012 and he got registered the same under Ex.A.1. The complainant says that as from the date of its purchase the vehicle, the engine oil has been oozing out from the head top core beading, the complainant handed over the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party to rectify the defect on 2.1.2013 and he took delivery of the same. When the complainant observed some sound from the crank and engine walls and also the battery of the vehicle is not working, he informed the same to the opposite parties but they did not respond to the request of the complainant. Then he got issued a legal notice Ex.A.2 dated 18.6.2013 through his advocate to the opposite parties demanding to provide a new motor cycle of Honda Shine or return his amount immediately after receiving the present motor cycle, otherwise the complainant would proceed to the court of law against the opposite parties. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties received the same under Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 respectively. On receiving the same the opposite parties 2 and 3 approached the complainant and asked him to hand over the vehicle to rectify the defects. The complainant handed over his motor cycle to the 3rd opposite party to rectify the defects of it. The 3rd opposite party after three days returned the vehicle to the complainant stating that they rectified the defects of the vehicle. After riding the motor cycle for two days the complainant found same defects and got issued another legal notice Ex.A.6 dated 6.8.2013 to the opposite parties informing about the same defects of the vehicle and demanded to provide new motor cycle Honda Unicorn or return his amount along with interest at the rate of 36% per annum by receiving the present defective motor cycle within a week or else he would proceed to the court of law against the opposite parties. The notices to opposite parties are returned unserved under Ex.A.8 and the 3rd opposite party received the same under Ex.A.9 and got issued reply legal notice Ex.A.10 dated 22.8.2013 through its advocate by denying the allegations of the complainant.
7. The opposite parties 1 and 2 say that the complainant purchased the said motor cycle from the 2nd opposite party and after purchase of the said vehicle in the month of October, 2012 he never visited the 2nd opposite party or 3rd opposite party for periodical checkup. The opposite parties received a notice from the complainant on 18.6.2013. Immediately the opposite parties approached the complainant and the technical person of opposite parties verified the vehicle and did not find any problem as stated by the complainant. But in order to satisfy the customer, the opposite parties expressed their willingness to give service to the vehicle of the complainant. As per warranty policy Ex.B.6 every customer is bound by terms of warranty. The vehicle is required to be put to service periodically as per warranty conditions. Service to the vehicles are necessarily to be carried out in authorized service centers of the manufacturer only. The 1st service of the vehicle is to be carried out within 15 to 30 days from the date of purchase or 750 to 1,000 kms, run; 2nd service shall be within 105 to 120 days or 3,500 to 4,000kms run, whichever is earlier, 3rd service shall be within 225 to 240 days or 7,500 to 8,000 kms run, whichever is earlier, and 4th service shall be within 350 to 365 days or 11,500 to 12,000 kms run whichever is earlier. Generally service is required for every 2,500 to 3,000 kms run. In this case, there is clear breach of warranty. The complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 24.10.2012 and he brought the vehicle to the workshop of 3rd opposite party on 2.1.2013 with the speedo-meter reading of 3,895 kms. Ex.B.1 evidences the same. The 3rd opposite party demanded the complainant to furnish the deatails of earlier services if any. But he failed to furnish the same. The technicians of the 3rd opposite party attended to the vehicle, observed and noticed some outside material near the head top which shows that the vehicle was handled by unauthorized technicians which is against the warranty. The 3rd opposite party service center carried out repairs and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle by signing on Ex.B.1 that he was satisfied with the repairs of the 3rd opposite party. The complainant again brought the vehicle on 13.2.2013 with the speedometer reading of 6,080 kms and pointed out some minor problems and the 3rd opposite party repaired the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant under Ex.B.2. Again the complainant brought the vehicle on 25.2.2013 at 6,777 kms and on 14.5.2013 at 12,881 kms after run of 6,100 kms with a minor problems and they were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant under Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4. After receiving the legal notice from the complainant the opposite parties called the complainant to bring the vehicle to the workshop and the vehicle was brought and was checked up. There is no defect in the vehicle except oozing engine oil from the head top core beading which is not an inherent or incurable defect or a manufacturing defect. The vehicle was with the 3rd opposite party from 4.7.2013 to 7.7.2013 and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after submission of his satisfaction note under Ex.B.5. Ex.B.7 photographs of repaired parts of the vehicle shows that the vehicle was repaired by unauthorized persons. The opposite parties say that the complainant purchased Honda Dream Yuga FDB vehicle, he demanded for Honda Shine Vehicle in his legal notice dated 18.6.2013, which is more costly and expensive than the vehicle purchased by him. Again in his legal notice dated 6.8.2013 he demanded for Honda Unicorn which is more costly and expensive than above two vehicles. Oozing of engine oil problem is easily rectified where the problem was arised. There is no such complaint in their service center about this type of vehicles. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 24.10.2012 and it ran about 15,761 kms by 9.7.2013 as per Ex.B.8. Various service reports, both paid and free services would shows that the vehicle is in perfect running condition and the opposite parties have rendering effective service to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant did not furnish any senior mechanics opinion.
8. We, the Forum thoroughly noted the contents of Ex.B.6 warranty policy that ‘HKSI would repair or replace at its discretion, those part(s) found to have manufacturing defects during examination. This repair or replacement of part(s) would be done free of charge at their authorized workshop, within a warranty period of 24 months from the date of sale or until the vehicle has covered 32000kms, whichever comes first’. The vehicle did not complete the term of 24 months or 32,000 kms. The opposite parties have to repair the defects of the vehicle of the complainant till its warranty period expires. They have to repair the same as per conditions and terms of the warranty. The complainant did not follow the terms and conditions of the warranty. The demands of the complainant in his legal notices dated 18.6.2013 to provide Honda Shine legal notice dated 6.8.2013 to provide Honda Unicorn which are more costly than the vehicle he purchased or to refund the cost of the vehicle which he purchased is not permissible as the complainant used the vehicle from the date of purchase i.e., 24.10.2012 till date and ran about 15,761 kms by 9.7.2013. It is the duty of the opposite parties to rectify the defects within warranty period as per terms and conditions of the warranty when he approaches the opposite parties. But the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects of the vehicle of the complainant. So he approached the Forum. Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties by not rectifying the defect of the vehicle. Hence the complainant is entitled for relief.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to rectify the defects of the vehicle of the complainant when he approaches for the same within warranty period with free service as per terms of warranty and they are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand rupees only) as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 20th day of May, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Laam Siva Rama Krishna Gopal D.W.1 A.Gopi Chand,
Complainant Authorized person of the
(by affidavit) 2nd opposite party (by affidavit)
D.W.2 M.Madhusudana Sarma,
Director of the 3rd opposite party, (by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 14.11.2012 Photocopy of Certificate of registration.
Ex.A.2 18.06.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.3 18.06.2013 Three postal receipts.
Ex.A.4 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.5 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.6 06.08.2013 Office copy of Final Notice.
Ex.A.7 06.08.2013 Three Postal receipts.
Ex.A.8 . . Unserved returned cover.
Ex.A.9 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.10 22.08.2013 Reply notice from the counsel of the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A.11 17.06.2008 Photocopy of Driving License of the complainant.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 02.01.2013 Attested copy of Job Card.
Ex.B.2 13.02.2013 Attested copy of Job Card.
Ex.B.3 25.02.2013 Attested copy of Job Card.
Ex.B.4 14.05.2013 Attested copy of Job Card.
Ex.B.5 04.07.2013 Attested copy of Job Card.
Ex.B.6 . . Attested copy of warranty policy.
Ex.B.7 . . Bunch of Photographs.
Ex.B.8 09.07.2013 Photocopy of Job Card.
PRESIDENT
