The complainant Parveen Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased Honda CB Shine Motor Cycle manufacturing date 01/2014, manufactured by opposite party No. 1, from opposite party No. 2. The opposite parties gave two years guarantee of all the parts of the motorcycle. The opposite parties launched scheme for extending guarantee/warranty for another 3 years against payment and complainant opted for extension of three years guarantee/warranty for all parts of the motor cycle and paid requisite premium on 17-01-2014. The opposite parties gave in writing that extended warranty shall expire on 16-01-2019 or on 72000 Kms.
It is alleged that compainant has been getting done all the services of the motorcycle as per schedule from opposite party No. 2.
It is further alleged that in January, 2017, the said motorcycle started emitting white smoke. The complainant took the motorcycle to opposite party No. 2 with complaint. After thorough inspection, mechanic of opposite party No. 2 disclosed that there is problem in the engine of the motorcycle and engine is to be replaced with new one and that the complainant should have to pay price of the engine. The complainant disclosed to the said mechanic that since the motorcycle is within warranty period, the company should change the engine of the motorcycle free of costs, but to no effect.
It is further alleged that despite repeated requests of the complainant, opposite party No. 2 did not replace the engine of the motorcycle free of cost and demanded charges for the same. The complainant got served legal notice dated 28-9-2017 upon the opposite parties requiring them to replace the engine of the motorcycle in question without any charges, being within warranty, but the opposite parties neither replied to the notice nor changed the engine.
It is also alleged that opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Due to adamant attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment, for which complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for dirction to the opposite parties to replace the engine of the motorcycle in question free of cost and pay him Rs. 30,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
The opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands as he has suppressed true and material facts.
It is pleaded that complainant did not get the vehicle serviced as per periodic schedule of the company policy/service booklet. The vehicle is not having any engine related problem nor the complainant visited opposite parties on the alleged date regarding any engine problem to motorcycle in question, as such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties.
Further legal objections are that the complainant has got no locus standi and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint.
On merits, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant purchased extended warranty for three years but pleaded that extended warranty was subject to certain terms and conditions which were well within the knowledge of the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 did not give any guarantee to complainant rather it was warranty by opposite party No. 2.
It is pleaded that complainant only got serviced his vehicle from authorized service centre of opposite parties till 9-5-2014 thereafter he came for service after gap of three years i.e 25-4-2017, hence violated terms of warranty and extended warranty. It is the policy of the opposite parties that warranty shall not be applicable to two wheelers that has not been got serviced from authorizewd service centre as per the recommended maintenance schedule. The complainant did not get the vehicle serviced as per schedule regarding which fact complainant visited the service centre only 5 times from the date of purchase of motorcycle i.e. January, 2014 uptil January, 2015, while the complainant got his vehicle serviced on 25-4-2017 vide Job Card No. JC PB040002/02/1718/00712 and never mentioned regarding alleged engine problem. It is denied that mechanic of the opposite parties asked the complainant that the engine of the motorcycle is required to be replaced or that the complainant should have to pay the price of the engine.
It is further pleaded that while servicing the vehicle on 25-4-2017, no such complaint was ever made by the complainant nor the same was found by the opposite parties. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty and extended warranty and repair, if any, will be carried out with costs at this stage.
It is also pleaded that a detailed reply has been given to the notice served on behalf of the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of Corporate Waranties (I) Pvt Ltd. (Ex. C-1), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of R.C. (Ex. C-3), photocopy of Form 20 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice & postal receipts (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7) and affidavit dated 12-4-2018 of complainant (Ex. C-8).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit dated 23-5-2018 of Sukhwinder Singh, Manager (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of Job Card (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of service record (Ex. OP-1/4 & Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of extended warranty policy (Ex. OP-1/6) and photocopy of owner's manual (Ex. OP-1/7).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
These are undisputed facts between the parties that complainant purchased motorcycle in question, manufactured by opposite party No. 1, on 10-1-2014 vide Retail Invoice Ex. C-2 from opposite party No. 2. The complainant opted for the extended warranty for motorcycle in question, for three years i.e. from 17-1-2016 to 16-1-2019. (Ex. C-1). The said warranty was to expire on 16-01-2019 or on 72000 Kms run.
The complainant alleged that he has been getting done all the services of the said motorcycle as per schedule, from authorized dealer and service provider of the opposite party No. 1. In January, 2017, the said motocycle started emitting white smoke. The complainant took his motorcycle to opposite party No. 2 and mechanic of opposite party No. 2 disclosed that there is problem in the engine and engine is to be replaced with new one but the complainant should pay charges for the same. The allegation of the complainant is that he is entitled to free replacement of engine of the motorcycle under extended warranty, which is not being provided by the opposite parties and thus, this act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
On the other hand, the pleading of the opposite parties is that the complainant got serviced his vehicle from authorized service centre of the opposite parties till 9-5-2014. Thereafter complainant came for service after gap of three years i.e. on 25-4-2017 as is evident from Ex. OP-1/4 & Ex. OP-1/5. The policy of warranty shall not be applicable to two wheelers that has not been got serviced from authorized service centre as per recommended maintenance schedule. Morever, even on 25-4-2017, when the complainant got his vehicle serviced, never mentioned regarding alleged engine problem. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of warranty and extended warranty.
A perusal of file reveals that the opposite parties have placed on file Extended Warranty (Ex. OP-1/6). It has been specifically mentioned in this document that “warranty shall not apply to any Honda two-wheeler manufactured by HMSI on which all services have not been done as per HMSI recommended service schedule. It is further mentioned in the warranty policy under “Service Requirement” that “The gap between two services should not exceed more than 3000 Kms or 2 months for Stunner & for CB Shine/Dream Yuga/Dream Neo/Twister/CD 110 Dream, 4000 Kms. or 4 months (whichever is sooner). Failure to maintain and prove that the above service schedule has been complied with, will invalid this policy.
The complainant has not placed any document on file to show that he got his vehicle serviced as per recommended schedule. The opposite parties have placed on file service record of the motorcycle in question (Ex. OP-1/4 & Ex. OP-1/5) to prove that complainant has visited the authorized service centre on 25-4-2017 after January, 2015. This document shows that complainant got his vehicle serviced on 19-1-2015 on 7719 Kms run and after that he visited opposite party No. 2 on 25-4-2017 when the vehicle had run 33345 Kms. The opposite parties have also placed on file Job Sheet dated 25-4-2017 (Ex. OP-1/2) vide which complainant got serviced his vehicle. The allegation of complainant is that mechanic of opposite parties conveyed that engine needs replacement, whereas above said job Sheet did not even find mentioned any problem of engine.
The complainant has not placed any document on file to prove that he got his motorcycle serviced as per extended warranty recommended schedule. The complainant has also not placed on file even a single document to prove that engine of his motorcycle ever suffered any problem. Last Job Sheet also does not reveal this complaint. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties rather complainant is at fault in not getting his vehicle serviced timely as per extended warranty recommended schedule due to which his extended warranty became invalid. Moreover, there is no expert evidence on the file to prove any manufacturing defect of engine of the motorcycle in question due to which it needs replacement.
Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced :
10-01-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
