Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

cc/26/2016

V.Saikiran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Motor cycles & scooters India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

04 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

                                                          Complaint presented on:  09.02.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  04.03.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY  THE 04^th  DAY OF MARCH 2019

 

C.C.NO.26/2016

 

V.Saikiran,

No:22/184, Venkateshwara  enclave,

Flat. No:1, 5^th Street,

Poompuhar Nagar,

Kolathur, Chennai – 99.

                                                                                               …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.Honda Motorcycles & Scooters India Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Plot No.1, Sector -3,

IMT Manesar, Dist,

Gurgaon (Haryana) 122 050.

 

2.SVM Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.65, Medavakkam Tank Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

3. The Service Manager,

M/s. SVM Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Honda Service Centre,

New No:11, Old No:44,

NMK St, Ayanavaram,

Chennai – 600 023.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 08.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.M.Malar, F.Terry chella Raja

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : M/s.G.M.Syed Fasi Mohammed,

                                                                   K.Zahurunissa Begam & E.Vijay

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.54,500/- towards the cost of vehicle and replace the defective motor cycle and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony  with cost of complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has purchased the Motor Cycle “Honda Dream Neo” from the 2^nd opposite party on 17.04.2014, bearing Engine No.JC62ET1005835, Frame No.ME4JC623KDT005685, for a total value of Rs.54,355/- . The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the aforesaid motorcycle and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized dealer to sell and to deal with after sales service of the motor cycles sold by the 1^st opposite party.  Immediate after the purchase, complainant started using the vehicle. within five days of taking delivery of the vehicle, it is observed ‘oil Leak’ in the cylinder head of the motorcycle and there was heavy ‘smoke emission’ from the silencer. The motorcycle has run only a meager 300 kms, at that point of time. The same was immediately informed to 2^nd opposite party who in turn assured that it was only a minor fault and the same would become alright in the due course. It was further informed by the 2^nd opposite party that if the same problem persists, it would be rectified during the 1^st free service of the motorcycle.  The said problem did not seem to end and it was only getting worse with more oil leaking from the cylinder head and more smoke emitting from the silencer. The complainant reported the same to 2^nd opposite party while giving motorcycle for the 1^st free service on 21.05.2014. The 2^nd opposite party took note of the said problem and assured the complainant that same would be set-right. Three days later, the opposite party called the complainant and informed that all the problems have been rectified and collected a sum of Rs.382/- as service charges. When the complainant started using the motorcycle the very same problems persisted and this time oil leak and smoke emission was colossal. Again, when it was informed to the 2^nd opposite party that the ‘oil seal’ has to replaced, however since they were running out of stock of that component, the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant to come after ten days. Even after ten  days when complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the said component viz., ‘oil seal’ was not available with 2^nd opposite party and opposite party yet again asked the complainant to come after two weeks. In the meantime, complainant vehicle fell due for its 2^nd free service and hence complainant gave the motorcycle to the 2^nd opposite party. While doing so complainant also specifically lodged a complaint with the above stated problems. This time around, the 2^nd opposite party inspected the motorcycle and told ‘head replacement’ has to be done which would cost the complainant around 400 to 500 rupees and complainant also accepted for the same. Accordingly, 2^nd opposite party  took  the motorcycle for service and retained it for about two weeks  and the head replacement has been done and also scanned the motorcycle’s guarantee card in regard with the replacement.  The 2^nd opposite party also charged complainant a sum of Rs.420/- vide service order dated 05.08.2014 bearing No.2252. The complainant started using it after the 2^nd free service. The complainant once again shocked to notice that the ‘Head replacement’ which the 2^nd opposite party claimed to have been done, was not actually done, instead only reconditioned the head. As a result, the earlier problems of ‘Oil Leak’ and ‘Heavy Smoke – emission’ continued, causing complainant severe mental agony besides loss of time and money.  Once again complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and informed about the said problems. This time also, the 2^nd opposite party coolly asked the complainant to come with the motorcycle to the service Centre and accordingly, the complainant took the motorcycle to the 2^nd opposite party on 16.10.2014. The 2^nd opposite party informed complainant that the head has to be replaced once again. The 2^nd opposite party replaced the head  and once again scanned guarantee card. On 17.10.2014 the 2^nd opposite party called and  informed the  complainant that the motorcycle is ready, the head having been replaced and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.742/- as charges. As usual the 2^nd opposite party never rectified the said problem and was put to face the same old problem of ‘Oil Leak’ and ‘Heavy Smoke-emission’ in addition with low mileage as well. Hence complainant left the motorcycle with the 2^nd opposite party  for service on 06.02.2015  against in  job card No.32496 categorically stated the above problems of oil leak, heavy smoke emission and low mileage. After claiming to have serviced the motorcycle, the 2^nd opposite party asked me to pay a sum of Rs.1,285/- towards replacement of spares in relation with the problems stated by the complainant. Problems never really got rectified. The motor cycle manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and sold by 2^nd opposite party  is a defective one as otherwise no new motorcycle would cause so many problems. Both the opposite parties have deliberately cheated and defrauded complainant by selling a defective motorcycle to complainant and by doing so, both the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice, putting the complainant to irreparable loss, untold hardship and severe mental agony.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has purchased “Honda Dream Neo’ Block colour bearing registration No.TN-05-AW-6347, engine No.JC62ET 1005835, Fram No.ME4JC623KDT005685 on 17.04.2014. The complainant raised the dispute of deficiency in service after riding the two wheeler successfully after 11,516 KMS and after 16 months from the date of purchased the vehicle. The allegation of complainant is that, immediately after the purchase of vehicle within 5 days of taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant observed Oil leak from the cylinder head of the motorcycle and heavy smoke emission from the silencer, the complaint contained of false allegation against the opposite parties. The complainant have taken delivery of the new vehicle on 17.04.2014 for  Puja, after a week the complainant brought his vehicle for registration on 25.04.2015, the 3^rd opposite party have ample proof of the same. Honda recommended the first free service between 750 kms to 1000kms, in fact the complainant enjoying the peaceful ride and brought the vehicle for first free service at 1193 kms dated 19.05.2014 in Job Card No. 6699, the 3^rd opposite party advice the complainant to bring the vehicle in time as per the norms, during the first free service no complaint made by the complainant in regard to oil leakage in Job Card No.6699, general service was done as oil change, water wash, cleaning of Air filter and petrol carburet etc., The vehicle was ready on 20.05.2014 the same was informed to the complainant over the phone at about 4.21 pm, the complainant took delivery on 21.05.2014 with full satisfaction the complainant paid Rs.382/- for oil  change etc. The complainant has not mentioned any problem as such oil leakage from the cylinder head and more smoke omitting from the silencer. The complainant brought the vehicle for second free service at 2926 kms dated 03.07.2014, in time, in Job Card No.22522 the vehicle was ready the same was informed to complaint, he took delivery with full satisfaction and he paid Rs.382/- for oil change, Gasket, Rollercapetc., The complainant has not mentioned any problem as such oil leakage from the cylinder head and more smoke omitting from the silencer. The opposite party also deny the allegation that, 2^nd opposite party told the complainant  head replacement has to be done which would cast around 400 to 500 rupees, opposite party deny the allegation that, opposite party informed the complainant that the head replacement has been done and also scanned the motorcycle guarantee card in regard with the replacement. The opposite party also deny the allegation that, the 2^nd opposite party also charge Rs.420/- vide service order dated 05.08.2014 bearing No.2252, it is purely imagination on the part of the complainant. On 06.02.2015 the complainant left for 4^th service and there was no such complaint made by the complainant in job card No.32496  it is very clearly mentioned and duly signed by the complainant in the job card No.32496 that, 1.Milage Check- up 2. Fork Adjustment 3. Head  light not working and 4. Parking light not working, this was the complaint made by the complainant, and it was made ready for delivery and the same was informed to the complainant. The complaint contained of false fact and cooked up story made by the complainant to preliminary his defense and to make to tall claim against opposite parties with the intention to grab money, which is against the Law and Justice. The complainant is not entitled to get replacement of vehicle with new one. And the opposite party are not in fault to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.54,500/-  cost of the Motorcycle. The complainant has suppressed the fact in regard to 3^rd service that, on 16.10.2014 the complainant brought the vehicle for 3^rd free service in job card No.27556 the complaint made by the complainant was 1. Front Break  Panel Noise 2. Fork check and 3.Milage Tune, that has been  rectified and the complainant paid Rs.742/- and taken delivery with full satisfaction and duly singed on the above mentioned job card. On 06.02.2015 the complainant left the vehicle for 4^th service in job card No.32496 the complaint recorded 1.Mileage  checkup 2.Fork adjustment 3.Head light not working and 4. Pass light not working the vehicle was ready and informed the complainant through phone the vehicle is ready for delivery, the complainant informed the opposite party that, he is not in station he will take the delivery as he reaches Chennai on 07.03.2015, mean time the complainant sent a letter to 1^st opposite party with false allegation that, in regard to fraudulent acts and requested 1^st opposite party to replace the defective motorcycle with a new and perfect one. The opposite party has send reply for the same dated 01.04.2014. Till date the complainant has not chosen to take delivery of his vehicle. The complainant availed 4 service from 3^rd opposite party and therefore at this juncture the opposite parties are not liable either for deficiency in service or for replacing the vehicle the allegation that no better service provided by the opposite party is absolutely false, they provided prompt and effective service to the complainant therefore the complaint liable to be dismissed inlimine. Therefore the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence this complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts and liable to be dismissed with cost. 

3. The complainant and the opposite parties had come forward with their respective proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A1. to Ex.A15.were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked on the side opposite parties.

          4. The written arguments of the complainant and the opposite parties were filed and the oral arguments of the complainant closed, but oral arguments opposite parties is heard.

 

 

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

Complainant has purchased  a Motor cycle “Honda Dream Neo”  from 2^nd opposite party  for a sum of  Rs.54,355/- on 17.04.2014. The 1^st opposite party  is the  Manufacturer. The 3^rd opposite party  is the service centre. Booking receipts are Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and the delivery note is Ex.A4. Registration certificate, Retail invoice copy and extended warranty and insurance policy are Ex.A5 to Ex.A8.  The contention of the complainant is that within five days of the delivery of the vehicle, oil leakage was found in the cylinder head of the motor cycle and also heavy smoke emission from the silencer when the motor cycle has run only 300 Kms,  and the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party,  in turn  the 2^nd opposite party  told that it will become alright in due course, even after the reported  troubles, complaints were not rectified by the 2^nd  opposite party  and also motor cycle manufactured by 1^st opposite party  and sold by 2^nd  opposite party  has manufacturing defect and defective one.

07.  The complainant’s  allegation  regarding the  defects soon after the purchase of the motor cycle is denied by the opposite parties  and the allegation of the complainant is also not supported by any proof. Ex.A9 is the receipt for payment of bill for the service done in pursuance of  job card dated 19.05.2014 vide Ex.B1.  Ex.B1 shows that the motor cycle ran up to 1193 Kms at the time of service and this service is supposed to be the first service when the vehicle ran between 750 to 1000kms. As per the same exhibit general service was done and the only report on record was chain noise and Rs.382 was paid by the complainant for  oil change. Ex.B2 is the service card bearing No.22522 for the second service dated 03.07.2014 with the complaints of battery charge, front wheel Noise, chain noise, as per the record and Rs.382/- was paid for oil change. Again third service was done on 16.10.2014 vide card No.27556 and queries raised by the complainant  as on record in Ex.B3 was front break panel noise, fork check,  mileage  tune and in all the job cards the customer had signed as the job done was up to his satisfaction. During the 4^th service vide job card No.32496 in Ex.B4 there was a request by the complainant for mileage check-up, fork adjustment, head light and pass light not working. After service is completed the opposite parties had sent Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 notices   to the complainant to take back the vehicle. Reply notice is also given to the complainant vide Ex.B8 dated 7.08.2015 to the notice received by the opposite parties  from the complainant dated 22.05.2015 (Ex.A13) and all these letters and notices are sent through registered post. The opposite parties had intimated to the complainant properly after the service is completed, Whereas the allegations of the complainant as the problem in the motor cycle continued and the points put forth as the information by opposite parties  as to replace the oil seal was  dragged on by saying as the stock not available , Head replacement was not done instead head was reconditioned,  are not substantiated by any document or any proof.

           08.  The meager payments made by the complainant are only for the oil change etc., not for the services done as explained by the complainant is to be accepted, since it is generally done even at the time of free service. The complainant has also deviated the norms of  opposite parties by not submitting the vehicle for first service at the appropriate time. Even after the letter by 3^rd opposite party  the complainant has not taken delivery by paying the service charges and also the parking charges  is only the default of the complainant  therefore there is no deficiency is noticed on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. There is no proof or material or expert opinion placed before this forum by the complainant that the purchased vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. The complainant has not proved   any of the allegations against the opposite parties  and point No.1 is answered accordingly.

09. POINT NO :1        

The complainant has not  proved the deficiency in service against 3^rd opposite party   and also motor cycle manufactured by 1^st opposite party  and sold by 2^nd opposite party  is a defective one  and caused many problems as alleged by him. Since there is no deficiency in service, manufacturing defect there would not have been any mental agony, stress, or hardship and loss to the complainant. Therefore as per the discussions held in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 04^th  day of March 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.04.2014                   Receipt (Booking)

Ex.A2 dated 16.04.2014                   Receipt (Booking)

Ex.A3 dated 17.04.2014                   Receipt (Booking)

Ex.A4 dated 14.04.2014                   Delivery Challan

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Form 23 (A.3781947)

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Invoice copy

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Extended Warranty Booking

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Insurance Copy (ICICI)

Ex.A9 dated 21.05.2014                   Copy of service bill

Ex.A10 dated 17.10.2014                 Copy of Service bill

Ex.A11 dated 06.02.2015                 Copy of Job Card

Ex.A12 dated 17.03.2015                 Copy of complaint letter

Ex.A13 dated 22.05.2015                 Legal Notice

Ex.A14 dated 05.12.2015                 Complainant letter (Reminder)

Ex.A15 dated NIL                             Register post receipt & acknowledgement

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 19.05.2014                   Copy of Service from Job Card No.6699

 

Ex.B2 dated 03.07.2014                   Copy of Service from Job Card No.22522

 

Ex.B3 dated 16.10.2014                   Copy of Service from Job Card No.27556

 

Ex.B4 dated 06.02.2015                   Copy of Service from Job Card No.32 496

 

Ex.B5 dated 01.04.2015                   Letter to the complainant

 

 

 

 

 

Ex.B6 dated 20.04.2015                   Letter to the complainant

 

Ex.B7 dated 02.05.2015                   Letter to the complainant

 

Ex.B8 dated 07.08.2015                   Reply Notice to the complainant

 

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT