Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/274

Ranjeet Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         274 of 2019

Date of Institution :     15.11.2019

Date of Decision :       05.07.2022

Ranjeet Kumar Singh son of Sh Ram Raj Singh, BSF Campus Talwandi Road, Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Commercial Complex II Sector 49-50 Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Rudrashree Honda, near Bihani Campus Sukharia Circle, Sri Ganganagar. (Raj) through its Authorized Signatory.
3. Gyan Motors Pvt Ltd. Near Bus Stand, Faridkot through its authorized signatory.

......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                (Now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member..

Present:       Sh Ranjeet Kumar Singh/complainant in person,

 Ms Manjeet Kaur, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

cc no.-274 of  2019

 

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective vhicle, or to return the cost of same or to remove the defect from vehicle and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Honda Activa-125 CC Bike bearing Engine No.JF49E-82060863, Chassis no.Me4JF49-DH8009096 vide bill dated 24.05.2017 through CSD and paid Rs.54,713/-through Unit Canteen 193-Bn.BSF and also paid Rs.630/-as Extended Warranty Fee, Rs.1,722/-as Insurance Policy and Rs.300/-for temporary Registration fee. After some time of purchase, he came to know that vehicle in question was not working properly as white smoke was coming out from Engine and Oil in engine also used to become less after some time. Complainant made complaint regarding this to OPs through on line mode and it was registered vide Ticket no.1-81974701407. As per message from OPs, complainant reached the workshop of

 

cc no.-274 of  2019

OP-3 where, his vehicle was checked and he was told to produce extended warranty certificate. Complainant produced the same, but OP-3 told that there is no specific extended warranty certificate and after verification from OP-1 and OP-2, the defect would be removed. OP-3 found manufacturing defect in vehicle of complainant and assured to remove the same and in case the defect is not removed, then, his vehicle would be replaced with new one, but till date, OPs have not listened to the request of complainant. At the time of purchasing the activa, Ops assured about guarantee and warranty and also assured to provide services within 24 hours in case of any fault or manufacturing defect in said vehicle. Complainant made several requests to OPs to replace his vehicle, but all in vain. They paid no heed to hear the genuine requests of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in services and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective vehicle or to repair the same and to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.11.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

cc no.-274 of  2019

 4                                     OP-1 and 2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process of law and it does not disclose any cause of action and any consumer dispute. It is admitted that complainant purchased the vehicle in question from them and paid Rs.54,713/-alongwith Rs.865/- as vehicle accessories and Rs.1722/-as vehicle insurance and Rs.300/-for temporary registration certificate and this amount is clearly shown in envoice dated 24.05.2017. As per OP-1 and OP-2, complainant initially paid Rs.1000/-as booking amount in cash, then he paid Rs.54,713/- through cheque and then Rs.1652/- on 24.05.2017 through ATM.OP-2 gave discount of Rs.235/-to him and in this way, he has paid total amount of Rs.57,365/-, but he never opted for Extended Warranty. On merits, OP-1 and 2 have denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant never opted for extended warranty by depositing Rs.630/-and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any warranty. He did not pay Rs.630/-towards extended warranty, rather he paid Rs.630/-for accessories of vehicle purchased by him and not for extended warranty. Document placed on record by complainant is a part of booklet and all customers are informed about it and if any one is interested and willing to opt

cc no.-274 of  2019

the extended warranty and pays requisite amount for same, he is given the benefit of extended warranty and online receipt for the same is issued to customer, but in present case, complainant has not opted for extended warranty. It is further averred that there is no manufacturing defect in vehicle in question as it was being used by complainant for last two years without any problem. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                     OP-3 also filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as no cause of action arises against OP-3 and it has been wrongly impleaded as party in present complaint. However, on merits OP-3 denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant never paid any extended warranty fee as no amount of Rs.630/-was ever paid by complainant towards extended warranty, rather it was paid by him on account of accessory purchased by him from OP-2. Complainant asked OP-3 to repair the vehicle, it was repaired and bill was charged and any defect cannot be removed free of costs. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is

cc no.-274 of  2019

no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 16 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                  In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Girish Kumar Ex OP/W1/A, OP/W2/A, OP/W3/A, OP-2/1 to Ex OP-2/4, OP-3/1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

8                               We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                              After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle from OPs against proper bill and also obtained extended warranty by paying Rs.630/-against receipt ExC-4. Warranty of vehicle was for two years, but as complainant purchased extended warranty by paying Rs.630/-more to OPs and therefore, as per extended warranty, he is

cc no.-274 of  2019

entitled for free services for five years. After some time of purchase, vehicle of complainant did not work properly, white smoke started coming out from Engine and oil therein also used to become less after some time.  Matter was reported to OPs and as per their instructions, complainant reached the workshop of OP-3 where he got checked the same. He was told to produce extended warranty certificate, complainant produced the same, but after verifying the same from OP-1 and OP-2, OP-3 told that this was not specific extended warranty certificate. OP-3 found manufacturing defect in vehicle of complainant and complainant made several requests to OPs to replace his motorcycle, but all in vain. Grievance of the complainant is that though he is entitled for free repair services as per extended warranty, but OPs denied the same on the ground that complainant has not availed extended warranty services. To controvert the allegations of complainant, all opposite parties denied the fact that complainant ever purchased extended warranty. OPs took plea that vehicle was running smoothly for two years and now, on expiry of warranty period, he has brought problem in it. It is sternly denied that complainant opted for extended warranty and he did not pay the requisite fee for availing extended warranty for five

 

cc no.-274 of  2019

years. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                   To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-4 which is copy of Extended Warranty Certificate and it also reveals that requisite fee of Rs.630/-for obtaining extended warranty of five years has already been paid by him. OPs cannot deny their own document. Plea taken by OPs that complainant paid Rs.630/-for accessories and not for extended warranty, has no legs to stand upon in the light of document Ex C-16 that itself speaks out that complainant got affixed accessories from Dhingra Auto Parts and not from OPs and he paid Rs.1540/-for accessories to Dhingra Auto Part. Copy of Ex C-13 i.e bill dated 22.11.2019 for Rs.4490/- proves the trade mal practice on the part of OPs as on the one hand they have received payment for extended warranty and on the other hand, they have charged Rs.4490/-for removing the defect that occurred during the subsistence of extended warranty period. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence and all documents placed on record by complainant are genuine and authentic and these are beyond any doubt.                            

 

cc no.-274 of  2019

11                     It is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not providing effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant in not doing repairs of his vehicle free of cost inspite of the fact he has obtained extended warranty by making payment of Rs.630/- vide Ex C-4, wherein it is clearly mentioned that under extended warranty free services can be availed for complete five years. As Ops have received extended warranty fee, therefore, they are bound to render services to complainant with regard to any defect occurring in his vehicle during the subsistence of extended warranty period free of cost and during this period, they cannot charge any amount. Had they resolved the issue of repairing the vehicle of complainant as per extended warranty and had removed the defect satisfactorily in the beginning, complainant would not have filed the present complaint.

12                         From above discussion, this Commission is of considered opinion that OPs have failed to provide effective services to the satisfaction of complainant and charged amount to complainant despite having sufficient knowledge about extended warranty availed by him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4490/-

cc no.-274 of  2019

charged by them from complainant as per bill Ex C-13 and shall remove the defect from the vehicle in question upto the satisfaction of complainant free of costs, if any occurring during the period of extended warranty. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2,000/-for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission:

Dated: 05.07.2022             

 

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)             Member                         Member