Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/548

Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

compl.in person

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 548 of 16.09.2015

Date of Decision            :   05.09.2016

Raju aged 42 years s/o Champa Lal resident of H.No.506, Block-XIV, Street No.9, Prem Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.(HMSI), Registered Office at:Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt.Ltd.(HMSI) having its Branch Office: Pioneer Honda, G.T.Road, Near Dholewal, Ludhiana through its G.M.Jagdeep Singh.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person along with Sh.Amandeep Singh,  

                                                Advocate                      

For OP1                         :         Ex-parte

For OP2                         :         Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Sh.Raju filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he purchased one Activa Scooter bearing registration No.PB-10-ET-0847 of model 2014 having Chassis No.ME4JF502DE8035425 and engine No.JF50E81035508 with white colour from OP2 on 19.4.2014 for consideration of Rs.47,213/- by paying Rs.20,500/- at the time of purchase. Remaining amount is being paid by the complainant in installments of Rs.2027/- per month. Complainant was driving his above said vehicle for his personal work by duly looking after and parking the same accordingly. When the complainant availed the first service of Activa in question from company, then the vehicle became yellow, on which, Op2 was requested to do the needful, but they did not bother. Thereafter, when the complainant availed second service, then he disclosed about same problem and OP2 took some photographs of the vehicle. Thereafter, despite numerous requests on phone for rectifying the defects, OPs did not respond. Few months thereafter, when the complainant visited the company, then employees of the company painted the said vehicle, but the complainant was not satisfied with the same and he claimed as if proper paint has not been done. Thereafter, company called upon the complainant to get the vehicle insured from the New India Assurance Company Limited, Ludhiana, instead of old insurance company i.e. Bharti Axa. The colour of the above said vehicle has become yellow due to manufacturing defect of OP company and as such, it is claimed that OPs liable to replace the said vehicle with new one or in the alternate to refund the paid amount along with interest. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing Ops to replace the vehicle in question with new one. Even compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.30,000/- claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OPs, it is claimed that complainant used some inferior quality shampoo/shine to polish the metal body of the scooter and that is why colour slightly faded. It is claimed that in view of this fault of the complainant, OPs not liable as per warranty clause. Despite that OP2 for maintaining good relation with customer, as a goodwill gesture, offered to repaint the metal body free of cost, but the complainant refused by insisting for replacement of the vehicle. That demand of the complainant alleged to be unreasonable. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased from OP2. Complainant availed four services from OP2 i.e.on 19.5.2014,12.9.2014, 8.1.2015 and 18.4.2015. At the time of availing these services, complainant never lodged complaint regarding the vehicle having gone to yellow colour. That fact was brought to the notice of OP2 by the complainant only on 10.8.2015 and it was found that colour of the metal body has slightly faded. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that no ground is made out for replacing the vehicle because fault lay with the complainant. Though written statement filed by OPs, but OP1 was already proceeded against ex-parte vide orders of 30.10.2015 and vide orders of 4.1.2016, it has been specifically made clear that written statement filed by OPs will be deemed as written statement of OP2 only. So, written statement placed on record is legally the written statement of OP2.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Gautam Garg, Managing Director of M/s Shree Dadu Autos Pvt. Ltd. along with affidavit Ex.RW2 of Sh.Jagdeep Singh, General Manager of OP2 and even tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and then closed the evidence on behalf of OP2.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. But oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from Op2 through retail invoice Ex.C2 and thereafter, the said vehicle was taken for availing services to OP2. Record of job cards Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 in that respect has been produced.

7.                Perusal of Ex.R1, the job card dated 19.5.2014 shows that the change of engine oil took place on that date, but perusal of Ex.R2 dated 12.9.2014 reveals that besides change of engine oil, clutch adjustment was done and problem of oil filter replacement even was resolved. Perusal of Ex.R3 reveals that on 8.1.2015, the vehicle in question was taken by the complainant to OP2 and at that time, the complainant was called upon to agree for the change of engine oil and grease, but he did not agree. Perusal of Ex.R4, the job card of date 18.4.2015 reveals that engine oil and F/bush grease was not agreed to be changed by the complainant and that is why the same service was not provided. In none of these job cards Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, mention made qua fade of colour of the metal body of the vehicle in question. Complaint regarding fade of colour of metal body was lodged for the first time on 10.8.2015, when the vehicle brought by the complainant to Op2 for availing service through issue of job card Ex.R5. If really the colour of the vehicle in question would have turned yellow due to manufacturing defect, then the same would have so changed during the period of services from 19.8.2014 to 18.4.2015, but the same has not happened and that is why report in that respect not        lodged and as such, submission advanced by counsel for the OP2 has force that actually fade of the colour reported for the first time on 10.8.2015 only.

8.                Through Ex.R5, the repair advisor reported that colour of the body has faded somewhat, but the same due to use of shampoo by the customer. Customer refused to get the job done is note recorded in job card Ex.R5 itself. So, some fault on the part of the complainant is there because he refused to get the job done on the above referred dates.

9.                As the written statement, offer made for repaint of the metal        body free of cost and as such, same itself reflect as if some fault in the colour occurred because of some defect in manufacturing or handling or otherwise and that is why such offer submitted. That fade of the colour took place within 1 year and 4 months i.e.  within warranty period and as such, OPs are bound to repaint the Activa Scooter in question as per offer submitted through written statement. Complainant suffered mental harassment because of this defect, but fault also attributable to him in not getting the job done despite offer and as such, somewhat the lesser compensation for mental harassment along with litigation expenses alone should be awarded.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint disposed of in terms that Ops will repaint the Activa scooter in question of the complainant free of costs as offered through written statement. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. payment of compensation and litigation costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

          (Karnail Singh)                                  (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                              President                         Announced in Open Forum

Dated:05.09.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.