Haryana

Panchkula

CC/330/2019

BABU RAM. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOSHI AUTOSCANS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

17 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	330 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	10.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.01.2023

 

 

Babu Ram son of Shri Lal Chand, resident of House No.2522, Sector-15, Panchkula, Tehsil & District Panchkula-134113.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Joshi Autoscans Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.369, Sector-8, Panchkula       through its authorized signatory-134109.

        2^nd address

        Joshi Honda, Plot No.395-A, Industrial Area, Phase II, Panchkula,       Haryana through its authorized signatory-134113.

2.     Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Commercial         Complex II, Sector-49-50, Golf Corse Extension Road, Gurgaon,    Haryana through its authorized signatory.-122018.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                       

ORDER

(Per Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a scooter, namely, Activa 5G from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 22.07.2018 amounting to Rs.55,130/-. The OP No.1, besides above amount, had charged extra amount in lieu of  accessories and the registration charges  of the vehicle and thus, had charged a total amount of Rs.66,021/-. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 24.07.2018. It is stated that the complainant was assured that the vehicle, having 2 years warranty of engine and two years warranty of its parts, was best in its class. It is stated that the engine oil stared leaking from the chamber of the scooter within a week time from its purchase and in this regard, the complainant brought the matter into the notice of the OPs. The complainant got the three services of the vehicle in time but even after the regular services the engine oil kept on leaking from the chamber of the scooter. The complainant requested the official of the OP No.1 to rectify the defect of leakage of engine oil but no heed was paid to his request. In the evening of 25.05.2019, the complainant parked his vehicle in the front of his house and in the morning i.e. 26.05.2019, the leakage of engine oil was found, where upon the complainant contacted the OP No.2 on its customer care no.18001033434 and lodged the complaint no. 70733452119. Thereafter the staff of OPs visited the house of the complainant and after inspecting the scooter, the same was taken to the work-shop of OP no.1 vide job card no.4454 dated 26.05.2019 for rectification of the defects. The official of OP No.1 informed the complainant that chamber of the scooter had broken which could be got replaced by lodging the insurance claim. The complainant refused to lodge any claim as the vehicle had not got damaged in any accident. The OP no.1 was requested to replace the vehicle with new one as the same was containing manufacturing defects since its very purchase. The complainant sent an email on 26.05.2019 to OP No.2 as well as OP No.1 requesting for the replacement of the defective vehicle with new one. Another email was sent to CEO on 28.05.2019 & 31.05.2019 but even after the receipt of the email the Ops did not bother to respond the said email. The OP No.2 was again connected on its toll free number requesting for the replacement of the defective vehicle but an executive of OP no.2 totally declined the request of the complainant.   Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notices, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through learned counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant. The complainant does not fall under the category of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act. The complainant has suffered no damage due to the act of the OPs, thus, he is not liable for any compensation. It is submitted that complicated question of facts and laws are involved, wherein detailed evidence in the shape of examination and cross-examination of witnesses is required, which is not permissible in summary trial being adopted during the adjudication of the consumer complaint. The complainant has not filed any application under Section 13(1)(c) of  the Act so as to establish the allegations of manufacturing  defects.  It is stated that in the absence of any such report from independent laboratory, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the relationship between the OPs is based on principal to principal basis. The purchase of the product in question by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted but it is stated that the same was purchased by him at his own choice. It is stated that the scooter manufactured by the OP No.2 is best in quality and its segment because of its quality and precision. It is denied that there occurred any defects in the scooter within a week time as alleged. Service of the engine was done but no leakage of oil from its chamber was found. The complaint made on customer care is matter of record. It is submitted that no manufacturing defect of the vehicle was found. It is submitted that as per invoice dated 26.05.2019, oil leakage in the left hand side was found as there was a hole due to crack as the vehicle might have been hit with/against something and accordingly, the complainant was advised to lodge  the insurance claim. The averments regarding sending of email are admitted being matter of record but it is stated that the contents of email were false and frivolous. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and thus, OPs are not liable to replace the same. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 3.            To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A along with documents Annexures R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the complainant as well as ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the vehicle, namely, Activa 5G bearing no. HR-03X-9612, engine no.JF50E88030604, chassis No.ME4JF50BFJ8030548 was purchased by the Complainant vide invoice dated 22.07.2018 (Annexure C-1) amounting to Rs.55,130/-. As per Complainant, the oil from the chamber of the engine of the said scooter was found leaking after a week’s time from its purchase. During arguments, the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint as well as in his affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that substandard and inferior quality of material was used in the manufacturing of the chamber of chassis of the engine, on account of which, the chassis got cracked leading to the leakage of the oil and thus, prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6. On the other hand, the complaint has been resisted by the OPs by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in their reply.

Vide preliminary objections, it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant.

This objection is rejected in view of the fact that the vehicle in question is still lying in the custody of the OP No.1 vide job sheet No. 4454(Annexure R-1) since 26.05.2019 on account of happening a hole in its chassis, which had led to leakage of the oil. Thus, the objection raised qua maintainability has no merits in it.

The next objection is that the Complainant has suffered no damage and hence is not entitled to any compensation.

This objection is also rejected having no merits in it as discussed above in preceding para.

The next objection,, which has been taken, is that complicated question of law and facts are involved in the adjudication of the present complaint, which requires examination and cross examination of the witnesses which is not permissible in the summary trial being adopted in the adjudication of consumer complaint.

This objection is also rejected as the issues involved in the present complaint can be adjudicated in a just and fair manner on the basis of documents, which are available on the file in the shape of job sheets/e-mails sent by the Complainant etc.

7.  
8.  
9.  

10.            Further, it is relevant to mention here that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of the OP No. 1 since 26.05.2019 and since then, no efforts qua the redressal of the grievances of the Complainant have been made so far. Hence, in the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case as narrated above, the OPs were negligent and deficient while rendering services to the Complainant for which they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant.

11.  
12.  
13.  

Announced on: 17.01.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini,          Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal

                                         President