BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 17/2011 Filed on 22/01/2011
Dated: 30..09..2016
Complainant:
Shibu. S.V., Sheeba Cottage, Kothakulangara, Panayamuttom-P.O., Nedumangadu-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 561.
(By Advs. K.P. Renadive & D. Padmini Rose)
Opposite parties:
1. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd., Kareem Towers, 19/5 & 19/6, IInd Floor, Chunnigham Road, Bangalore – 560 052.
2. Marikkar Motor’s Ltd., Honda Division, MG Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
Addl. 3rd opposite party:
3. The Service Manager, EVM Honda Ltd., Service Centre, Neeramankara – 695 002.
(By Adv. S. Ajith)
This C.C having been heard on 17..08..2016, the Forum on 30..09..2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
Complainant’s case is that complainant purchased a Unicorn Motor Cycle made by the 1st opposite party from the 3rd opposite party on 01/06/2009. He had done the services of the said vehicle with the 3rd opposite party. After the 3rd service several complaints arise. Large sound is heard from the engine and when he pointed out the same at the time of 4th service, the 3rd opposite party replied that it was a normal one. So not satisfied with the performance of 3rd opposite party, he gave the vehicle for service to the 2nd opposite party. But they also failed to rectify the defects properly. So he claims for adequate relief from this Forum.
2. 2nd opposite party filed version contending that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from M/s. EVM Motors, Neeramankara, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram. The regular free services were carried out by the complainant with the said dealer. The complainant itself has admitted in the complaint that he had purchased a Unicorn Motorcycle from the authorised dealer of the 1st opposite party, namely EVM Motors, Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram, on 01/06/2009. Thereafter the free services and periodical attentions were done with EVM Motors on 27/06/2009, 28/07/2009, 12/09/2009, 16/10/2009, 28/11/2009, and 08/12/2009. The complainant further admitted in the complaint that while hiring he above services from the selling dealer, ie., EVM Moors, there were noise from the engine of the vehicle in question and the services rendered by the selling dealer were not satisfactory consequent to which, the complainant lost confidence on the selling dealer and their services. It is submitted that from the above admission, it is crystal clear that the deficiency, if any (not admitted) was on the part of the selling dealer, ie, EVM Motors. The liability of giving suitable explanation or answers on the allegations enumerated in the complaint are solely which the knowledge of the selling dealer, ie, EVM Motors. The complainant has deliberately suppressed the material facts and trying to take undue advantage and unlawful gain on the allegation against the 2nd opposite party, who is not at all a necessary party in the complaint. After the expiry of warranty, the complainant brought his vehicle to the 2nd opposite party on 13/12/2010 with a complaint of engine abnormal sound at 39293kms. The 2nd opposite party has entertained the vehicle on paid basis and conducted a thorough inspection, accordingly, the complainant was informed regarding the replacement of necessary parts be made on the vehicle to become road worthy. The complainant consented to go ahead with the work on paid basis as the warranty had exceeded long back. Accordingly, order was sent to the 1st opposite party to procure necessary parts to enable the 2nd opposite party to carry out the works on the vehicle. Whereas, the required parts were not available with the 1st opposite party, there was some delay occurred to complete the works, which is not deliberate or on account of any deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. When the parts were received from the 1st opposite party against the order, necessary rectifications / repairs were done on the vehicle and due intimation was given to the complainant to take delivery for the vehicle from the garage of the 2nd opposite party, after remitting the repairing charges. Meanwhile, the complainant went ahead with the proceedings; accordingly, a Commissioner was appointed by this Forum to check the present status of the vehicle. The Commissioner has inspected the vehicle in the presence of the complainant and Area In-charge of the 1st opposite party and satisfied himself that the vehicle has not suffered any sort of complaint, which is quiet roadworthy and performance of the vehicle is satisfactory. After the inspection, the complainant had taken delivery for the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 04/05/2011 on his entire satisfaction. There is no manufacturing defect of any nature whatsoever. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint as against this opposite party.
3. Additional 3rd opposite party filed version that the complainant has purchased a motor cycle of the Model Unicorn from this opposite party in the year 2009. The complainant has done all the four free periodic services with this opposite party. Thereafter he has not turned up to this opposite party and this opposite party has no knowledge about the vehicle of the complainant. It is submitted that during the free service the complainant has not raised any complaint with respect to the vehicle to this opposite party or thereafter till date. The allegation that the complainant has done six services with this opposite party is not correct and the same is denied. As is evident from the complaint after the fourth service, the complaint has not entrusted his vehicle with this opposite party for any service. The allegation that after the third free service there were sound from the engine and it was reported during the fourth service is not correct and the same is denied. It is submitted that no such complaint was made by the complainant to this opposite party. The allegation is vague and is only an afterthought. The allegations with respect to the entrusting of the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party and the alleged transactions with them are not known to this opposite party and the same are denied. This opposite party has no knowledge about the alleged delay in repairing of the vehicle at the 2nd opposite party Service Centre and the same is denied. This opposite party has no knowledge about the vehicle and the same is denied. This opposite party was impleaded without issuing any notice or hearing this opposite party before impleading. This opposite party is not at all a necessary party in the proceedings. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as against this opposite party.
4. Points raised:
(i) Whether the allegation of manufacturing defect is established?
(ii) What are the reliefs for the same, if any?
5. Points (i) & (ii): Complainant filed affidavit along with 5 documents, which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite parties also filed affidavit to substantiate their version along with 2 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 & D2. Commission report is marked as Ext. C1. Perused the documents. This is a complaint alleging manufacturing defect in a Motor Cycle purchased by the complainant. Opposite party raised the question of non-joinder of the dealer as the preliminary issue and it was rectified by the complainant in the later stage. An expert was appointed from this Forum to ascertain the facts in this complaint and he filed a detailed report which was marked as Ext. C1. His findings are as follows: As per the vehicle service history collected from M/s. EVM Honda, all the four free service of the vehicle were done at EVM Honda on stipulated time. The first free service was done on 27/06/2009 at 717kms, second service was done on 28/07/2009 at 2625kms, third service on 12/09/2009 at 5839kms, fourth service on 16/10/2009 at 8430 kms. After completing all the four free services, the vehicle had only one visit at EVM Honda on 23/10/2009 at 8993kms. But the details of the work done were not entered on the job. Later the vehicle was not take there for any service. As per the job card number 2841 dated 13/12/2010, the vehicle was received for the first time at the service centre of M/s. Marikkar Motors at 39293 kms. There is no regular service record of the vehicle from 8993kms to 39293kms (ie 30300kms) at EVM Honda or Marikkar Motors. The complainant has showed a service entry on the owner’s manual as sixth service dated 08/12/2009 at 14600kms. But no authorised stamp / seal or signature of the servicing dealer was found entered on the owner’s manual. No service record of this vehicle on this date could be traced from EVM Honda and Marikkar Motors or any other authorised dealer service centres. Hence the authentication of this entry is suspected. As per the job card number 2841 of M/s. Marikkar Motors dated 13/12/2010, the customer complaint was registered as ‘Engine abnormal sound’. They have dismantled and inspected the engine components and found that the crank shaft and crank bearing were the main components got damaged. It is noted that some of the engine parts like exhaust valve and inlet valve (Part No.96100-60030-00) and crank shaft bearing (part No.91001 KSP 913) were not in stock at Marikkar Motors on 13/12/2010 to complete the repair work of the motorcycle in time. The enormous delay in obtaining these parts from the second opposite party M/s. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd was the main reason for not completing the service of the vehicle in time. As per the statement of the Honda area in charge Mr. Umesh Kannan, the company was in the process of shifting their spare parts warehouse from Noida to Chennai and that is why such a large delay has occurred in supplying the parts. The vehicle was kept ready at the time of inspection on 27/04/2011 at the service centre of M/s. Marikkar Motors. The battery of the vehicle was weak as it was kept idle for long time. The engine crank cover allen nut was found damaged as it was attempted to remove it with improper tool than an allen key. Test drive of the vehicle was done and it was found reasonably well, though had a less engine pulling. In order to assess the present condition of the engine, an engine compression test was conducted. It was noted that the engine compression pressure at 1000 rpm was 9.8 kg / cm2 at dry condition and 10.7 kg / cms2 at wet condition. As per the manufacture’s recommendation, the standard engine compression pressure is 11.8 kg / cm2 at 1000rpm on dry condition. Hence it was noticed that the engine cylinder was also having excessive wear, which was not diagnosed properly by the service centre technicians at Marikkar Motors at the time of engine repair. Generally when engine related complaints are registered, it is a usual practice to conduct the engine compression test to assess the wear pattern of the engine, which was not done here. An exhaust emission test of the vehicle was also conducted (certificate attached). The reading showed excessive hydro carbon emission of 438 ppm, which is also an indication of worn out engine cylinder. In order to do the complete overhauling of the engine to bring it in a good condition, it is necessary to replace the following components also in addition to the parts which are already replaced.
a. Engine piston (part No. 13101 KSP 910)
b. Piston ring set (part No.13011 KRM 305)
c. Piston pin (part No.13111 KSP 910)
d. Engine cylinder (part No. 12100 KSP 900)
e. Cylinder head gasket (part No. 12191 KSP 910)
As seen on the service records, the regular servicing of the vehicle as per the recommendation of the manufacturer was done up to 8993 kms only at the dealer service centre. Service records for the next 30300 kms were found missing and the petitioner could not give any valid documents of servicing for this period or reason for the same. Hence it can be concluded that the improper maintenance of the vehicle has led to the premature failure of the engine of the vehicle. There was an unjustifiable delay in getting the spare parts from the manufacturer to the dealer. Because of this the petitioner has to wait a long time to get the repair done on time from M/s. Marikkar Motors. Proper diagnosing was not done for the reported engine problem by the service centre people at Marikkar Motors. In order to bring the engine to a reasonable good condition, they need to reopen the engine again and replace many more parts. With the present condition, the vehicle will run for another few thousand kilometres before it fails. But it is possible at the cost of more engine oil and fuel consumption with a substandard performance.
So on going through the Commission Report, we can safely conclude that there is contributory negligence from both sides. Complainant failed to establish that he had done all the services as per the conditions stipulated by the manufacturer and properly maintained the vehicle purchased by him. For this findings in Commission Report, no steps were taken by the complainant to contradict. So he is admitting the same. At the same time, Commissioner clearly points out the deficiency from the part of the opposite party in not repairing the vehicle in time, nor having spare parts available with them and in not diagnosing the actual complaints of the vehicle Here in the complaint complainant is not praying for any specific relief, only appropriate relief is claimed by him. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it just and proper if we order a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant will serve the purpose. So the complaint is ordered accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay the complainant Rs. 25,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 5,000/- as cost within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is eligible to get 9% interest for Rs. 25,000/- from the date of default till the date of realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of September, 2016.
Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/- P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad.
C.C.No. 17/2011
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness:
PW1 : S.V. Shibu
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of Retail Invoice of EVM Motors dated 10/04/2003
P2 : Copy of Invoice of EVM Motors, Neeramankara dated 01/06/2009
P3 : Copy of RC Book of Sri. Shibu. S.V
P4 : Copy of Gate Pass dated 13/12/2010 of Marikar Motors Ltd
P5 : Copy of Service Record Sheet of EVM Motors
III. Opposite parties’ witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties’ documents:
D1 : Original Job card of Marikkar (Motors) Ltd dated 23/01/2012
D2 : Original Job card of Marikkar (Motors) Ltd dated 09/05/2011
V. Court Ext:
C1 : Commission Report
CW1 : V.R Sabu, Commissioner.
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
