CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.42/2017
MR. GAFFAR AHMED
S/O ABDUL STTAR
R/O F-72 A, BLOCK-F,
VISHVAKARMA COLONY,
LAL KUAN, M.B. ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- MR. ANIL KUMAR (MANAGER)
M/S PRAGNYA HONDA
(A DIVISION OF RASAH EXIM LTD.)
C-198, PUL PEHLAD PUR,
M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
- MR. GAGAN MALHOTRA, MANAGER/INCHARGE
MALHOTRA AUTO SERVICE CENTRE,
A-289, VISHVAKARMA COLONY,
LAL KUAN, M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
- M/S HONDA MOTORCYCLE & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD.
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX II, SECTOR:49-50,
GOLF COURSE EXTENSION ROAD, GURGAON,
HARYANA-122018
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:24.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
This complaint has been filed by Mr.Gaffar Ahmed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against (1) M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India (2) Mr. Anil Kumar (Manager) M/s Pragnya Honda ; (3) Mr. Gagan Malhotra (Manager/Incharge), Malhotra Auto Service Centre, hereinafter referred to as OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 respectively. It is submitted by the complainant that he had purchased an Activa 125 (SCV125G) on 4th November, 2016 from OP-1, for a sum of Rs.65,000/- paid in cash, bearing Engine no.JF49E81291728, Frame No.ME4JF493HG8249751, Chassis no.HG8249751 Colour Pearl, Regn.No.DL12SJ1437. It is further submitted that OP no.2 assured that the said motorcycle was mechanically inspected and is Q.C. passed and OK for purchasing and at the time of purchasing complaint and his friend namely Pradeep saw that the same Activa had already run 54 km approximately. It is submitted that when the complainant asked about this to the OP, it was told that “Itna active ko chal kar aana hota hai is liye itni chali hui hai.” On 6.11.2016, the vehicle started showing mechanical defects in engine and in other parts due to manufacturing defects. The complainant approached OP-2 and OP-3 to replace the said motorcycle but he was told that it would not be possible but they assured to remove the defects by replacing the parts which are defective with new ones but nothing was done. On 20.11.2016, the complainant again approached OP-2 as per his given time but nothing was done to rectify the engine noise despite making requests, and meanwhile the complainant found that the Activa was not giving proper mileage. It is further stated that OP-3 Manager, told the complainant that he would have to wait for sometime for replacement of engine and correction of other defects due to busy schedule of senior engineers. The complainant approached the OP-3 on 14.12.2016, 19.12.2016, 21.12.2016 but neither any satisfactory response was given nor the engine was replaced. What is worse is that when he approached OP-2, the officials of OP-2 misbehaved with him and misguided him. It is submitted that the vehicle remained in the custody of the OP-3 till 24.12.2016. The complainant submits that he had to undergo immense harassment and mental agony due to deficiency of service on the part of all the OPs, which also caused him loss in his business. The complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel to the OPs, and also lodged a complaint against OPs 2 and 3 to the Police regarding cheating and breach of trust for sale of the vehicle which had already run 54 kms. The complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.65,000/- along with interest and also pay a compensation for deficiency in rendering service to the complainant, in addition to the litigation charges.
OPs replied to the complaint. OP-2 in its reply submitted that the complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds, with mala fide intentions to extort money, without any cause of action, and without any consumer dispute having been disclosed in the complaint. It is submitted that the OPs were ready to rectify the problems in the said vehicle free of cost as per the warranty policy. It is submitted that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant after a test drive and it was thoroughly mechanically inspected. The complainant left the vehicle with OP-3 on 14.12.2016, as he was adamant to replace the vehicle with new one but it was not possible as per warranty and on 24.12.2016, he again visited and took away the vehicle without rectifying the noise problem. The vehicle was not suffering from any mechanical or manufacturing defect when the same was delivered. The complainant approached the OP-2 for first servicing with a complaint of noise coming from the engine. It was referred to OP-3 for servicing and removal of the problems if any as per the warranty, and OP-3 prepared the job card but the complainant specifically refused to have the defect removed and was adamant to get replaced the entire engine but the same was not permissible under the warranty policy. It is submitted that the OPs are still ready to remove the defective parts free of cost. It is submitted that the OP-2 requested the complainant several times to sort out the query received from the customer care of HMSI but he did not pay any heed to the request.
Similarly, OPs-2 and 3 also filed the reply and made submissions exactly on the same lines, and denied that the meter reading of the said vehicle was 54 kms, or that OP-2 gave any explanation to any query of the complainant or his friend. The OPs denied all the allegations made in the complaint as wrong and false, and requested that the same might be dismissed.
The parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits. The complainant has filed his own affidavit deposing on oath all the averments and allegations mentioned in the complaint, rejoinder, etc. The complainant also filed an affidavit of his friend Shri Pardeep Kumar, who also deposed on oath, in support of the claim of the complainant, almost same or similar facts. The complainant was directed to inform this Forum as to how many kilometers has already been covered by the vehicle in question. The complainant has filed two photographs indicating that the vehicle has already covered 4813 KMs.
Similarly, the OPs have also filed their evidence narrating on oath their version of the happenings. The parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
The complainant has stated that when he purchased the Activa, that has already run 54 Kms. approximately. This is denied by OPs. The complainant has not placed any anything on record to show that the said Activa has already run 54 Kms. when the same was purchased by him, and if it is so then the complainant should not have taken delivery of the Activa.
The second contention of the complainant is that he took the vehicle on 06.11.2016 and the same started showing mechanical defects in the engine and in other parts due to manufacturing defects. The complainant approached OP-2 and OP-3 to replace the said vehicle but he was told that it would not be possible but they assured to remove the defects by replacing the parts which are defective with new ones but nothing was done. The complainant has placed a job card dated 06.11.2016 detailing all these things.
It is significant to note that OPs have specifically stated in their reply that the complainant visited OP-2 for the first time on 14.12.2016 with a complaint of noise problem coming form the engine. The complainant was requested to visit OP-3, authorized service centre, for servicing as well as for rectifying the noise problem. The complainant left the vehicle with OP-3 on 14.12.2016, as he was adamant to replace the vehicle with new one but it was not possible as per warranty and on 24.12.2016, he again visited and took away the vehicle without rectifying the noise problem. The vehicle was not suffering from any mechanical or manufacturing defect when the same was delivered.
On the job card placed on the record, it is specifically stated that the complainant refused to get the defects rectified. The only intention of the complainant was to get the vehicle replaced and it is not possible as per the terms of the warranty because there was no manufacturing defect and if there was any problem, OP was ready to rectify the same. It is the complainant who has declined to get the same repaired as is evident from the documents placed on record by OP-2 and OP-3. The subsequent job card dated 11.10.2017 also shows that the complainant refused to get the work done. Again there is a job card dated 22.02.2017. The complainant again refused to get the job done.
OP-1 has specifically stated in para 3 that the complainant for the first time visited OP on 14.12.2016 and this fact is not denied by the complainant in the replication. Again in para 4 it is stated that on 14.12.2016 the complainant left the said vehicle with OP-3 as he was adamant to replace the said vehicle with new one but that was not possible as per warranty. On 24.12.2016, the complainant again visited OP-3 and after servicing, he took away the said vehicle without rectifying the noise problem.
In para 5 it is stated that the complainant was requested several times by OP-2 to visit the workshop to sort out the noise problem but he did not pay any heed and finally he was sent two letters dated 05.01.2017 and 07.01.2017 and thereafter the complainant visited the workshop on 11.01.2017 but he did not allow the workshop to rectify the same has he wanted to replace the vehicle.
In replication sending of letters dated 05.01.2017 and 07.01.2017 was not denied. In fact the vehicle of the complainant has covered 4813 Kms as is evident from the documents filed by the complainant. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the same would not have run 4813 Kms. Other job card specifically provides that it is the complainant who refused to get the noise problem rectified.
Under these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP or to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT