Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/208/2020

Shaveta Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

H/s Honda Cars India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/208/2020
Date of Institution	:	6.7.2020
Date of Decision	:	21/ 11/2022

 

Shaveta Goyal d/o Sh. Bal Krishan Goyal r/o flat No.2225, Super Enclave, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Honda Cars India Limited Kasna Road, Sector 12, Greater Noida (UP) through  Managing Director.
2. M/s Sugoi Motors Pvt. Ltd. 21-A, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi 110 015 through its Managing Director.
3.  M/s Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Corporate office: IIIrd floor, Orchid Business Park, Sohna Road, Sector 48, Gurgaon 122 002 through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Party(ies)

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER Member
Argued BY:-	Sh. Devinder Kumar, counsel for the complainant. Sh. Abhay Josan counsel for OP No.1 OP No.2&3 already exparte.

         

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant  purchased a Honda WRV VXMT car in the month of March 2019 from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.9,35,049/- vide invoice Annexure C-1. The said vehicle was having 36 months warranty. It is pleaded that in January 2020 one of the tyre of the car got burst while car went over a ditch.  Since the vehicle was under warranty and run only 10,000 KMs therefore, the complainant approached M/s Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.  being authorized dealer on 20.2.2020 and under their guidance the complainant approached to OP No.3 and requested them to replace the tyre with a new one as the vehicle is under warranty. However, the OP No.3 vide report dated 27.2.2020 Annexure C-3 rejected the claim of the complainant while observing in the report that The damage observed in your tyre is not a manufacturing defect. We are therefore, unable to extend the warranty benefits in this instance. Thereafter the complainant raised the issue with the other OPs vide various communications, however, the OP No.1 took same stand as was taken by the OP No.3 and refused to do the needful. It is alleged that the OPs just to avoid their lawful liability rejected the claim of the complainant with malafide intention.  Alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs as deficiency in service the instant comlaint has been filed.
2.     The Opposite Parties No.2&3 did not turn up despite service of notices, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.10.2020. However, later on reply and evidence on behalf of OP No.2 received by post as well through email. Since OP No.2 was already proceeded exparte therefore, vide order dated 6.1.2021 OP No.2 was only allowed to join the subsequent proceedings. 
3.     OP NO.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the obligation of answering OP is only with regard to the warranty of the cars manufactured by it and only in case of an inherent manufacturing defect duly proven  with cogent evidence and supported by expert report, and in the instant case there is no defect in the vehicle and as such no liability can be fasten upon OP No.1. It is asserted that the complainant was duly informed by the answering OP that the warranty of tyre is provided by the concerned tyre manufacturer i.e. OP No.3.  The complainant was further intimated by OP No.1 that as per information received from OP No.3 the tyre in question did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and hence could not be replaced under warranty. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present complaint is that despite his car as well as its tyres  in question were within the warranty period  the OPs did not replace the tyres when the same were burst.
7.     On the other hand the OP No.1 has taken the stand that no liability can be fastened upon it as there is no manufacturing defect proved on record with any cogent evidence and expert opinion.  Moreso, admittedly the tyres in question were inspected by OP No.3 the manufacturer of the tyres and the report of technical expert of OP No.3 Annexure C-3 has been placed on record by the complainant, relevant portion whereof is as under:-

“When a vehicle accidentally runs over a pot-hole or a kerb, the tyre takes a severe shock to the tread area (area which is in contact with the road) resulting in the sidewall of the tyre to over-flex beyond its limit. This over-flexing of the tyre makes the sidewall get pinched between the rim and the road surface. The pinching of tyre sidewall breaks the casing plies inside the tyres which can be seen as a deformation or cut on the sidewall/inner liner.”

        

    Thus, it was observed that the damage in the tyre is not a manufacturing defect and as such the same were not replaced.

8.     Admittedly the tyres in question got burst when the car went over a ditch. Undoubtedly, the vehicle in question was having 36 months warranty as per Warranty Card Exhibit RW/3 at page 24.  Clause 4 of this warranty terms is as under:-

 “The tyres & tubes are warranted against defect in material and workmanship and are covered by the respective manufacturers warranty. All such cases should be referred to the respective manufacturers by the customer through Honda authorized dealer.”

 

    Further under the head of Limitations in clause 5(c) the  warranty shall not be applied if any damage that results from hard driving due to race, rally or operation in a location not generally used for driving.

9.     Apparently the complainant failed to disclose any manufacturing defect in the car/tyres in question rather it is admission on the part of the complainant that the tyre of the car burst when the car went over a ditch.  The warranty terms and conditions mentioned above clearly reveal that the bursting of tyre driven in the location not generally used for driving is not covered under the warranty. Thus, in the absence of any technical expert opinion the complaint deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 10.       In view of the above, the present consumer complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

[Pawanjit Singh]

President

[Surjeet Kaur]

Member

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member