Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

147/2014

Mrs.Thanka Let MoniKumar,F/50 Years,Wife Of Mr.Monikumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt Ltd,(HMSI),Rp by its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ashok Kumar

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.07.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  31.07.2017

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,            PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

MONDAY THE 31^st   DAY OF JULY 2017

C.C.NO.147/2014

 

 

Mrs.Thankalet Moni Kumar, F/50 years,

Wife of Mr.Moni Kumar, K-30/B4,

Sakthi Apartments, 1^st Main Road,

Anna Nagar East, Chennai- 600 102.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., (HMSI),

Rep by its Managing Director, Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 3,

IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 050.

 

2.Mr.Suresh Babu, The Manager, S.V.M Motors (P) Ltd.,

No:65, Medavakkam Tank Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

3.The Service Manager, S.V.M. Motors (P) Ltd (Service),

New No: 111, Old No:44, N.M.K. Street,

Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                     : 24.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                         : T.Ashok Kumar,

                                                                       M/s P.W.Jeya Kumar Arul

 

Counsel for   Opposite Parties                    : M/s. Ravidhar, R.Anushya

                                                                   K.Zahurunissa Begum

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming compensation for hire charges, mental agony, loss of earnings and caused damage of the sarees u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant  had purchased a two wheeler Honda Dio – bike bearing registration No.TN 02 AV 7760 from the 2^nd opposite party on 22.11.2012 on payment of valuable consideration. The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service provider of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant’s bitter experience with the performance of the vehicle ever since from the date of purchase. The vehicle was giving trouble from the day one of the purchase. The complainant is a teacher she wear sarees to the school as per her dress code. On 29.11.2012 after reaching the school she saw her saree was spoiled because of the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  She had continuously lost 11 sarees in the same manner. She was also uncomfortable to drive the vehicle.

          2. On 12.02.2014 due to hit on the other car and met with an accident. The vehicle was heavily damaged and show was also sustained  hurt.  When the vehicle was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party/service provider, he found a piece of saree bit on the silencer of the vehicle. After two days he got a phone call from the customer care that her vehicle will be rectified in a week time and however the same was not rectified. She was left with no choice except hiring vehicle for her day today personal and school trips and thereby she had suffered financial loss. Hence the vehicle got a defect and the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          3. The complainant caused legal notice  on 02.04.2014 for which the opposite parties sent the irrelevant reply with false allegations. Therefore, the complainant filed this compliant claiming compensation for hiring charges, mental agony, loss of earnings and cost of the sarees.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties admits that the complainant had purchased Honda Dio Vehicle from the 3^rd opposite party which was manufactured by the first opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the service provider. The complainant raised the disputes after successfully riding the two wheelers for more than 17 months from the date of purchase proves that the vehicle has no defect. While the complainant riding the vehicle her saree cannot touch either the silencer or any part of engine of twowheeler. The complainant availed three free services on 23.02.2013, 25.05.2013 and 26.09.2013 and after her full satisfaction she took delivery of the same. The complainant informed about her the burnt saree, after she met with an accident on 05.02.2014. However she had stated in her notice about the date of accident was on 12.02.2014 and this contradiction itself proves that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant successfully using her vehicle even today and there is no defect in the vehicle and no deficiency committed by the opposite parties and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs,

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

          It is an admitted facts that the complainant purchased Honda Dio Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 02 AV 7760 from the 2^nd Opposite Party under Ex.A1 estimate and Ex.A2 invoice issued to him and Ex.A3 is the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle.

          7. The case of the complainant is that she had purchased the vehicle on 22.11.2012 and from the day one of the purchase she is expressing her difficulty to   drive the vehicle and on 29.11.2012 her saree was burnt and got fully damaged and she noticed such a fact on reaching the school when this was brought to the notice of the 2^nd Opposite Party on 05.12.2012 there was no response from him. Therefore the saree was spoiled because of the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and she lost 11 sarees  and after she met with an accident   on 12.02.2014 and after she entrusted to the 2^nd  opposite party he also found small saree bit on the silencer and therefore this facts proves that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and prays for replacement of the same.

          8. The complainant specifically pleaded in the complainant that the foot rest area of the vehicle is not safety due to her saree was burnt on 29.11.2012. When complainant riding the vehicle by keeping her legs in the foot rest how her saree got damaged or it was burnt has not been specifically pleaded in the complaint. However the counsel for complainant argued that the saree got touch with the silencer and the said silencer not been protected with cover as shown in Ex.A7 first photograph and this defect was rectified by the company and the silencer was fully covered in the other two photos in Ex.A7 and this fact proves that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. While keeping the legs in the foot rest which lies in front of the seat, certainly the saree cannot get touch with the silencer while riding the vehicle. Therefore the argument of the counsel is not accepted.  

          9. The complainant issued Ex.A4 legal notice and the said notice was replied under Ex.A5 by the opposite parties. The opposite parties replied that after running the vehicle about the 1024 kms, the complainant entrusted the vehicle for the first free service on 23.02.2013  and after running the vehicle about 1736 k.m the second free services was done on 25.05.2013.  The third free services was done by the 3^rd opposite party service centre on 26.09.2013. The aforesaid free services were supported by job cards Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 22.11.2012 and within a week purchase on 29.11.2012 her saree was burnt according to the complainant. If that being so how all the free  services was done by the 3^rd opposite party and further on the second service itself the vehicle ran about 1736  kms  from the date of purchase. The complainant had not denied the fact that the vehicle ran 1736 km.   Therefore, these facts clearly prove that from the date of purchase till the third service done on 26.09.2013 for ten months the Complainant was continuously using the vehicle. Further the defect alleged by the complainant is not a manufacturing defect. Manufacturing defect means such a defect should be in the engine fault. Further there is no supporting evidence available to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant conveniently used the vehicle continuously and only with an ulterior motive she had filed this complaint. Therefore, it is held that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, 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 31^st day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.02.2014                   Estimate & Quotation

Ex.A2 dated 20.02.2014                   Invoice

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     R.C.Book of the vehicle

Ex.A4 dated 02.04.2014                   Legal Notice

Ex.A5 dated 28.04.2014                   Reply Notice

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Damaged sarees will be produced during Trial

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Photo copies

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 23.02.2013                   Copy of the service Form

 

Ex.B2 dated 23.05.2013                   Copy of the service Form No.2754

 

Ex.B3         dated 26.09.2013                   Copy of the service Form No.8934

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Copy of the service Form No.15466

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                     Copy of the service Form No.15466

 

Ex.B6 dated         NIL                      Copy of the identify card

 

 

                                     

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT