Kerala

Idukki

CC/29/2022

Eldhose George - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Motor cycle & Scooter Indian LTD - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 8.2.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  7^th  day of  July,  2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.29/2022

Between

Complainant                                           :      Eldhose George,

                                                                   Kunnathukuzhiyil House,

                                                                   Meenkunnam P.O.,

                                                                   Muvattupuzha – 686672.

                                                                   Now residing at :

Eldhose George,

                                                                   Govt. Polytechnic College,

                                                                   Vandiperiyar P.O.,

                                                                   Idukki – 685533.

And

Opposite Parties                                      : 1.  Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Commercial Complex II Sector 49-50,

                                                                   Golf Course Extension Road,

           Gurugram, Haryana – 122018.

      2.  EVM Automobiles,

                                                                   SA Road, Vyttila,

                                                                   Kochi – 682019.

 (Both by Adv: Biju K. Chacko)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Complainant had purchased a Honda Unicorn 160 motorcycle for Rs.99,151.98/- from Honda showroom of EVM Koothattukulam.  It has warranty until 18.8.2023, though the date shown in the sale certificate is 18.8.2020.  Engine of the motorcycle had started emanating unusual noises from  day one, when the complainant had started to use it.  On 30.8.2021, complainant had informed the dealer.  However, he was told that vehicle can be examined only after Onam holidays.  Thereafter on 1.9.2020, complainant had sent a complaint via email to Honda customer care.  Thereafter on the next  day,  he had taken the vehicle to authorized service centre of Honda at Koothattukulam.   Though  vehicle  was  examined,  cause  of  noise could not be                                                                                                                   (cont……2)

• 2  -

determined.  Motorcycle had run only 87 kms.  It was again taken to showroom of dealer at Piravam.  Odometer reading was 101 kms.  To ascertain the cause of noise, engine was dismantled and opened.  Complainant submits that dismantling and opening of engine will affect resale value of the vehicle.  However, after the engine was installed again, it had started emanating noise due to defects in re-instalment.  Complainant had also noticed that there was oil leakage from engine on 2 occasions.   Hence complainant had contacted Muvattupuzha showroom of the dealer.  They were not prepared to examine the bike.  When the problem repeated after the bike had run 3043kms, it was taken to Vyttila showroom which is arrayed as 2^nd opposite party herein.  1^st opposite party is the manufacturer, namely, Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd..  Though  oil leak was solved by 2^nd opposite party, they were unable to fix the noise coming from the engine.  Bike had run 19000 kms presently.  Its periodical services are being attended to.  Complainant submits that he had raised money from his small vocation and also by borrowing from Muthoot Capital, to purchase the bike.  Though he had complained about noise coming from the engine, he was not given suitable reply.  Complainant had to take the vehicle to all showrooms of the dealer.  Even then, complaint cannot be rectified.  Complainant submits that there was defect in manufacturing of the motorcycle and lack of responsibility from the side of EVM automobiles, the dealer from whom he had purchased the bike.  Since bike had its engine opened, it will only fetch a very small price if put up for sale.  Complainant is presently residing in Vandiperiyar of Idukki District in connection with his job.  Complainant therefore prays for replacement of motorcycle with new one and a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for inconvenience caused to him owing to deficiency in service and defect in motorcycle.

 

          2.  Complaint was admitted.  Though opposite parties have appeared, they had not filed written version within time.  Subsequently, on 13.7.2022, both have filed a joint written version along with an application filed on 11.8.2022 for condoning delay occasioned in filing of written version.  As time could not be extended by this Commission, application was dismissed.  Case was thereafter posted for complainant’s evidence. Complainant had appeared and filed an unattested affidavit on 24.4.2023, the date of trial. He was informed accordingly and time was given till next posting for filing a proper affidavit. However, he had not appeared subsequently and filed proof affidavit duly attested.  There was no application or representation from his side.  Documents produced by complainant were marked as Exts.P1to P6.  Though opposite party was absent, their counsel had represented them.  Since complainant or counsel were not present, we have only heard the counsel for opposite party.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there any defect in the motorcycle ?

2)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?

3)  Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?                        

4)  Final order and costs ?                                                                             (cont…3)

- 3  -

3.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Complainant has alleged that motorcycle had started emanating a strange noise when he had started to use it soon after purchasing it.  That he had taken the motorcycle to authorized workshop of the dealer situated in Koothattukulam and thereafter at Piravam.  Reason for the noise could not be ascertained.  Apart from that, engine of the motorcycle was opened from Piravam workshop.  They had informed complainant that noise was owing to a problem with its kicker.  However, after re-assembly, engine had again started emanating noise due to improper fitting of the engine and its re-assembly.  This problem could not be solved.  Besides, on 2 occasions, there was leak from engine.  Though this was rectified by 2^nd opposite party, they were unable to fix the noise emanating from engine, caused due to imperfect re-assembly. 

 

          Firstly, the bike has not been produced before this Commission.  There was no move from the side of complainant to get the motorcycle examined by an expert and to get an opinion with regard to the defects in the engine, so pointed out by complainant.  As far as his grievances of opening engine of the bike is concerned, as there is no evidence in this regard, opening of the engine and its incorrect re-assembly as claimed by complainant, remain to be proved.  Along with complaint, complainant has produced 6 documents which have been marked by us as Exts.P1 to P6.  Ext.P1 is tax invoice relating to purchase of the bike by complainant.  Ext.P2 series 2 in numbers are print out of email complaint sent by complainant to the customer care of 1^st opposite party, dated 1.9.2020 and print out of the same complaint which was again forwarded on 2.9.2020 to the customer care unit.  Ext.P3 is tax invoice in relation to examination of the bike from Koothattukulam service centre of 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.P4 is another tax invoice issued from Piravam workshop of 2^nd opposite party relating to inspection of the vehicle.  However, we notice that the complainant has not taken any steps to get job card from the service centre at Koothattukulam.  Ext.P5 is the copy of job card issued from Muvattupuzha workshop of 2^nd opposite party.  In Ext.P5, left side oil leakage is seen corrected and engine sound change complaint was also checked. It does not indicate whether engine was to be opened to ascertain the source of noise.  Besides, this was done at Piravom service centre and not at Muvattupuzha.  Ext.P6 is yet another tax invoice issued from Vyttila service centre of 2^nd opposite party.  Exts.P1 to P6 are not sufficient proof of the alleged defect of the engine.  That apart, it is mentioned in the complaint itself that complainant has been using the motorcycle and it had run about 19000 kms.  Present complaint is with regard to noise caused from the engine due to alleged defects in re-assembly.  Even opening of the engine as claimed in the complaint remains to be proved.  The fact that the vehicle was inspected at workshop of 2^nd opposite party, both at Koothattukulam and Vyttila, would go to show that the dealer was not hesitant in offering his services to complainant.  Defect itself has not been proved.  Even it is presumed that there was such a defect, it cannot be considered as                                                                                                               (cont…..4)

• 4  -

material enough to warrant  replacement of the vehicle.  Complainant has not succeeded in proving that there was any defect in the motorcycle or that there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 

 

4.  Point Nos.3 and 4 are considered together :

                                                                                                        

          In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we further find that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.  In the result, this complaint is dismissed under the circumstances, without costs.  Parties shall take back extra sets of copies, without delay.

 

                                       Pronounced by this Commission on this   7^th  day of July, 2023

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

 

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                 Sd/-

 

           SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

                                                                                                            Sd/-

 

 

         SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1        -  Tax invoice relating to purchase of the bike by complainant. 

Ext.P2 series -  Print out of email complaint sent by complainant to the customer care of

•  1^st  opposite party. 

Ext.P3    -     Tax invoice in relation to examination of the bike from Koothattukulam

                      service centre of 2^nd opposite party. 

Ext.P4    -    Tax invoice issued from Piravam workshop of 2^nd opposite party relating

                      to inspection of the vehicle.    

Ext.P5    -   Copy of job card issued from Muvattupuzha workshop of 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.P6       -    Tax invoice issued from Vyttila service centre of 2^nd opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.