Date of Filing:15.01.2009<br /> Date of Order:30.09.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 148 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Girish Krishnappa Sonwalkar,<br /> Occ: Doctor, Medical Director,<br /> KLE Hospital, <br /> Gokak-591307, <br /> Belgaum District. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.,<br /> Plot No.1, Sector 40-41,<br /> Sarjapur Kasna Road,<br /> Greater Noida Industrial Development Area,<br /> Goutam Budh Nagar District, <br /> Uttar Pradesh-201306.<br /> <br /> 2. Dakshin Honda,<br /> Katha No. 2/97, Survey No. 97/1A,<br /> Singasandra Village,<br /> Hosur Road, Bangalore-6. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming Rs. 9,90,000/- or to replace Honda City Car bearing No. KA-25 N 4255 and damages. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant in order to facilitate his work and profession has purchased Honda City Car worth Rs. 7,90,000/- on road from opposite party No.2 who is the authorised dealer of opposite party No.1 on 31/03/2006 by accepting the conditions of the warranty booklet and got delivery of the car which was subsequently registered as KA-25/N-4255 with chassis No.MAKGD 851 CB 329952 and Engine No.L 15A 30077042. Since purchase the car was not working properly and the wheel alignment, balance etc., of the said vehicle was not up to the standard specifications of the opposite party company due to which the complainant was to contact the authorised service station by spending huge amount. On many occasions the complainant brought to the notice of the concerned persons of the authorised service stations about the manufacturing defects in the vehicle but the said defects were not rectified by the concerned. The complainant got the free service third time on 17/02/2007 from the authorised service station of the opposite party company and at that time complainant brought to the notice of the authorised persons about the wear and tear and other manufacturing defects in the Car by way of giving written letter. On receipt of the above letter the authorised person requested the complainant to approach Bridgestone tyre manufacturer in order to ascertain whether there is any manufacturing defect in the tyres of the said car. After attending the complaint in respect of the defect in the car, the Naveen Tyre Service, Belgaum has reported that the tyre has out sided shoulder wear due to disturbed alignment and tyre has no manufacturing defect. Since about one and half year the complainant has been making sincere efforts by approaching the authorised dealer of the opponent company in order to get rectified manufacturing defect in the car but the complaints of the complainant were not attended positively and the defect was not cured. Due the above defects the mileage of the car has come down to 8 kilometers per liter of fuel as against the canvassing of the company of 18 kilometers per liter. Steering of the car was shaking due to defecting alignment of the wheel balancing and other manufacturing defects. Due to the manufacturing defects in the above said car the complainant has been put to harassment, mental agony, torture and he was forced to spend heavy amount towards fuel servicing and other purposes and thereby the complainant deprived of making effective use and enjoyment of the said car to his satisfaction. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties through RPAD. Opposite parties put in appearance through their respective Advocates. Opposite party No.1 filed its version stating that the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P Act. The car in question was manufactured by opposite party No.1 and the same was purchased by the complainant through its dealer on 31/03/2006. It is submitted that in case of any manufacturing defect opposite party No.1 is required to meet its obligation as per the terms of the warranty. Complaint cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings and Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The wheel alignment of the vehicle was disturbed and same is driving in a rash and negligent manner. Present complaint has been filed to gain unlawfully from the opposite parties for their own negligence and mishandling of the vehicle. As per the report of the Engineer, tyre shoulder wear due to disturbed alignment but tyre had no manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to substantiate as to why the effective use and enjoyment of the vehicle by the complainant was not optimal therefore mere allegations holds no water. For all these reasons stated above, the opposite party No.1 requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.2 in his separate defence version stated that the complainant had purchased the Honda City Car on 31/03/2006. The complainant at no point of time brought to the notice of opposite party No.2 about the alleged defects in the wheel alignment and balance of the car. It is denied that since 1 ½ years the complainant has been making sincere efforts by approaching authorised dealer of the opposite party in order to rectify the defects. It is denied that due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle the complainant has been put to harassment and mental agony. Opposite party No.2 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party No.2 is not at all a necessary party to the complaint. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence. Mr. Amith Sinha, the Deputy Manager (Legal) has filed affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and Mr. Muneer Ahmed, Sales Representative of opposite party No.2 has filed affidavit. The complainant has also filed written argument and he has produced in all 11 documents with list of documents. On behalf of opposite parties no documents are produced. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following point arise for consideration:<br /> <br /> Whether there was any deficiency in service on <br /> the part of opposite parties? If so whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is a Doctor by profession. He has purchased Honda City Car from opposite party No.2 who is the authorised dealer on 31/03/2006. It is the case of the complainant that since the date of purchase, the car was not working properly and the wheel alignment balance etc., of the vehicle was not up to the standard specifications of the opposite party company. The vehicle is consuming more fuel due to defects in wheel alignment, steering imbalance and manufacturing defects. The complainant got three free services from the authorized service station of opposite party company. The complainant has left the vehicle to the Honda Service Center at Kolhapur. Service check sheet has been produced. Another service check list of Riverside Honda service station, kolhapur has been produced. The complainant has given notes and requested the service center to rectify the defects. Totally nine points have been mentioned in the check list. This service check list was issued on 04/11/2007. The complainant has produced another service check list dated 19/02/2008 of Riverside Honda, Kolhapur. The service center requested the complainant to approach Bridgestone tyre manufacturing to ascertain whether any manufacturing defect in the tyres of the car. As per the instructions of the service center, the complainant took the vehicle to Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd.,. The application form dated 19/02/2006 of Bridgestone India has been produced. The claim of the complainant was rejected by the Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. by noting below:<br /> “Tyre has one sided shoulder wear due to disturbed alignment. Tyre has no manufacturing defect”. <br /> Sd/-<br /> for Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., <br /> <br /> The Riverside Honda, Kolhapur has given letter on 20/02/2008 to the complainant. The said letter reads as under:<br /> To,<br /> Mr. Girish Sonwalkar,<br /> Gokak.<br /> <br /> Respected Sir,<br /> <br /> With regard to our communication about your Honda City vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA25N4255, we sincerely apologise for the inconvenience that you have faced. <br /> <br /> The concern of rear tyre of your vehicle, was attended in our Kolhapur dealership. Bridgestone engineering on 19/02/2008 did the simultaneous inspection of the same. We also have gone through the report of visit (from Bridgestone engineer), with respect to report tyre has no manufacturing defect hence can not be covered under warranty.<br /> <br /> We request you kindly get the tyre replaced or suggest us to do so on chargeable basis. Please feel free to contact undersigned for any queries. <br /> <br /> At the outset, we regret the inconvenience caused to you.<br /> <br /> Warm Regards, <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Shrishail A. Karole,<br /> Customer Relation Manager,<br /> Riverside Honda, Kolhapur. <br /> Voice : 0 – 9922946799. <br /> <br /> So as per this letter it is clear that, the opposite parties have apologized the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him. It is also admitted that tyre wear of the vehicle was attended in Kolhapur dealership of Honda. It is also admitted fact that the Honda Service Center itself has requested the complainant for checkup with the Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., and accordingly the Bridgestone Engineer inspected the tyres and it was noted by the Engineer that tyre has no manufacturing defect and the Bridgestone Engineer has clearly noted in the form that tyre has one sided shoulder wear due to disturbed alignment. So when this is the clear cut finding or inspection note of Bridgestone Engineer, it is more than clear that the vehicle is having disturbed alignment problem. When there was no manufacturing defect of tyres, the other defect is only disturbed alignment and this disturbed alignment is nothing but a manufacturing defect of the vehicle by the opposite party company. It is the duty and obligation and commitment of the opposite party to see that no defective vehicle are marketed or sold to the customers. The opposite party No.1 company is a very big and reputed company its responsibility is more and it should see that customers are not put into inconvenience or harassment. In this case by the service check lists and report of Bridgestone Engineer and by the letter of Riverside Honda dated 20/02/2008 makes very clear that the vehicle is suffering with disturbed alignment. Therefore, due to the said disturbed alignment the mileage of the car has come down and complainant is facing other connected problems with the vehicle. Therefore, naturally the complainant has been put into mental tension, agony and financial loss and he has been also put into loss of his valuable time and energy in taking the vehicle frequently to the service center for checkup and repairs. The complainant is a medical practitioner by profession. Due to the defective vehicle he has suffered mental tension and wasted valuable time. Therefore, he requires to be suitably compensated for the loss suffered. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the car and also for grant of compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.,. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the replacement of car is not possible since the car had been purchased in the year 2006 and for the last more than three years the complainant is using the car. After lapse of more than three years it is not just, fair and proper to order the opposite party company to replace with brand new car. However, the complainant can be compensated for the inconvenience, mental agony and for loss of time, energy and also financial loss. Grant of compensation in this case would meet the ends of justice. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation, it is intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The object of the Act is to be achieved by ordering the opposite party company to compensate suitably the complainant for all the loss and mental agony suffered by him. The opposite party company would have apologized the complainant for all his tension and mental agony instead of defending their action. The service provider or opposite party company shall not feel offended if a customer complains the quality of the product. The complaining customer is the most important customer for the service provider because he will bring defect in the product to the notice of the company by spending his time and energy. Therefore, the service provider or any manufacturing company should be thankful to the complaining customer for highlighting the problem. The company should attend the problem of the customer immediately instead of taking untenable defence. On the facts of the case grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant will meet the ends of justice for the deficiency of service, mental agony, tension and inconvenience caused to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party No.1 company is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within four weeks, the above amount carries interest at 10% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realisation.<br /> 7. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr.,