Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/204/2018

A.Muthukaruppan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Services Adayar Motors Pvt. Ltd. & others - Opp.Party(s)

Yurendra kumar

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 12.01.2018

Date of Disposal                : 11.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No. 204/2018

 

DATED THIS DAY TUESDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

A.Muthukaruppan,

T2 Sri Sharada Apartments

Old #:29, New #:22,

Loganathan Colony,

Mylapore Chennai-4                                                                ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

1.   Manager Service

Adayar Motors Pvt Ltd.

Authorised dealer Hero Honda

New #:54 plot #:269 1^st Avenue,

Indra Nagar Adayar Chennai-20

 

2.   Honda Motor Corp Ltd.,

By its chairman,

#:34 Community centre,

Basant Lok Vasant Vihar,

New Delhi-57

(Amended as per order dated 07.08.2013)

                                                                                      …..Opposite party

 

                                     

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.Yurendra Kumar

 

Counsel for  opposite parties               : M/s. Ramasubramaniam & Associates.

 

ORDER

THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,       : PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer protection Act 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to take back the defective ‘Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter’ and repay Rs.41,054/- cost paid for the vehicle with interest @ 24% from 11.07.2007 till repayment and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the deficiency of service of the opposite parties in having sold a ‘Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter’ with manufacturing defect and for the failure to carry out effective repairs to rectify problems which persist till date and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and pain caused by such deficiency of service and to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant submitted that he purchased a Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter on 11.07.2007 bearing engine #:07F IAM 04114 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party from 1^st opposite party on payment of Rs.41054/- and the vehicle took delivery with a warranty of 24,000kms or 2 years whichever is less from date of purchase. The complainant submitted that 2 days after purchase the scooter’s exide battery ran out, was recharged and this battery problem continued due to  poor quality of battery given despite  several complaints of battery failure. The said exide battery papers given to 1^st opposite party had been lost by them. The scooter began giving problems of noise in engine which was complained at time giving vehicle for servicing in Aug 2007. The problem continued even after delivery the increase of noise in Nov 2007 made complainant take the scooter to 1^st opposite party who assured no major problem advised regular servicing.  The complainant vehicle broke down abruptly on 23.12.2017.  on complaint the 1^st opposite party took the scooter on 29.12.2007 who demanded payment of Rs.2,000/- for cost of clutch and gear when warranty was subsisting.  On bargaining cost was bought down of Rs.654/- paid under protest. The opposite parties sold the said scooter with inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant has to be duly compensated for the deficiency of service and the resultant mental agony committed at complainant’s. Further the complainant prays that the opposite parties to take back the defective scooter and repay Rs.41,054/- with compensation for mental agony

2. COMMION WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF

                   The opposite parties deny allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitter hereunder and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the complainant had not pointed out any defects in the vehicle. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant had purchased a Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter from the 1^st opposite party. The vehicle was taken delivery only after a thorough test drive, after satisfied the vehicle took delivery on 11.07.2007.  It is submitted that the complainant had used the vehicle for a period of one and half years and availed four free services and the complainant had completed more than 15,500 kms. Further submitted that during the fourth service the complainant had stated that the self starter was not working. The same problem attended it was found that discharged battery requires regular maintenance but not done by the complainant due to that the self starter was not working. The same was rectified and handed over to him in good working condition. It is submitted that the vehicle had already covered 15,421 kms.  It is denied that poor quality of battery had been given to the complainant. With regard to the alleged noise emanating from the engine, there was no abnormality in the noise from the engine. The opposite party advised the complainant to service the vehicle on regular basis during 5^th free service. The complainant was not eligible for warranty. The 3^rd free service was not done this has caused discharge of battery and due to that self starter was not working. Further the said vehicle is defect free and the complainant has invented manufacturing defect only with a view to unduly enrich himself and there is no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties;.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on part of the Opposite parties ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  If so, to what extent?

The Proof Affidavit was filed by the Complainant as his evidence and the documents were marked as Ex. A1 to A4 and the opposite party filed proof affidavit and the documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B6 on his side.

4. POINT NO :1

          The complainant purchased a brand new Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter manufactured by 2nd Opposite party and sold by 1st opposite party, vide Invoice no. LJ 000 802064 paying a sum of Rs. 41,054/- on 11-9-2007 remains undisputed by both parties. The scooter carried a warranty condition of 24,000km Or 2 years whichever is reached first is an admitted fact. The complainant alleges that the battery ran out within two days from the date of purchase of the vehicle and the 1st opposite party recharged the same, meanwhile the 1st opposite party failed to return the battery warranty documents to the complainant. Due to battery failure the complainant was forced to kick start the vehicle for every use which leaves the complainant with severe knee pain which is later diagnosed as osteo arthritis. The scooter breaks down after few months of purchase and was towed to complainant house and then onto the 1st opposite parties workshop who demanded Rs. 2000/ for replacement of clutch and gear and the complainant ended up by paying Rs.654/- under protest. The complainant alleges that he was sold a Hero Honda scooter which suffered inherent manufacturing defects and the 1st opposite party's ineffective service amounts to deficiency of service and hence prayed to direct the opposite parties to take back the defective scooter and refund Rs.41,054/- being the cost of purchase, Rs.1,00,000/- against deficiency of service and Rs.1, 00,000/- for the resultant mental agony and hardship and Rs.5000/ towards cost of the complaint. Hence the complaint.

          5. The opposite parties contended that the complainant had not pointed out the nature of defect and had made bare allegations. Besides the complainant had availed all 4 free services in a period of one and half years for check of minor wear and tear while the scooter covered 15,500km approx within this period. The opposite parties also state that the averment about battery drain on the 2nd day of purchase was baseless and without any proof. The opposite parties stated that the gear and clutch component improper functioning could be due to unprotected water wash done in  unauthorised service centre. After the last service on 22-1-2009 the 2nd opposite party wrote two letters and called via phone calls to collect the vehicle but which was not taken back by the complainant and still lying with the 1^st opposite party service center for which the opposite party contended that the complainant is liable to pay demurrage charges to the opposite party

          6. The complainant purchased a Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter from 1st opposite party paying a sum of Rs. 41,054/- vide Invoice No. LJ 000802064 ,chassis no.07F1AM0411 on 11-7-2007 which was duly delivered on the very same day marked as Ex. A1. The warranty card of the scooter bearing validity for either 24,000km Or 2 years whichever is earlier from date of purchase and the service record sheet marked as Ex.A2. The complainant's letter stating  about continues breakdowns and repairs on the disputed vehicle is marked as Ex.A3. The complainant claims that as a result of using kick starter he developed knee pain  for  which he has filed the medical details which is marked as Ex. A4.

          7. The job card for the 1st free service on 07-08-07 is marked as Ex. B1. The job card pertaining the 2nd free service is marked as ExB2. It is found in Ex.B1 there was no defects found in the vehicle which is the 1^st free service. In Ex.B2 it is found that the vehicle indicator was not working and the break was adjusted and further it is stated in Ex.B2 that both defects are minor one and in Ex.B2 the complainant has also affixed his signature.  Under Ex.B2 the vehicle by that time covered 4049 kms. The quick free service is carried out on 25-12-2008 is marked as Ex. B3. It is found in Ex.B3 the vehicle has covered in 18848 kms and has run for more than one and half years.  It is further found in Ex.B3 that clutch shoe was changed and there was noise in the clutch, it is further found in Ex.B3 that there was no battery during that service and several parts were replaced during that service. Ex. B4 is the jobcard for quick service done on 22-1-2009. It is found from Ex.B4 that the vehicle has covered 19467 kms and it is further found there is jam of kicker and the complainant was advised to take delivery of the vehicle on the same date but it seems that the complainant has not taken delivery of the vehicle thereafter.  Copy of letter by 1st Opposite party to complainant requesting to collect the serviced is marked as Ex. B5 and Ex.B6.  The complainant failed to prove that there was battery discharge within two days of purchase. The opposite party in his version contended that the battery breake down should have been only  due to the pure negligence during unprotected water wash done in unauthorized service centre.  As per the contention of the opposite party the complainant has availed four free services and during those services the vehicle was in good condition except a few minor repairs as found from Ex.B1 to B4 and those repairs are minor complaints like adjustment of break fixation of saree guard and battery checkup which was met by the 1^st opposite party.  It was only during the 4^th service, it was stated by the complainant that the self starter was not working which was also rectified by the opposite party and which was due to the fact that the regular maintenance was not done by the complainant because of that self starter was not working  due to the discharge of battery.  With regard to the alleged noise from the engine the opposite party contended that the noise is not an abnormal one and advised the complainant to service the vehicle on regular basis  which was not done by the complainant. Though the complainant has filed Ex.A4 medical details the alleged illness of the complainant has no direct nexus with the alleged defects found in the vehicle.  His alleged knee pain cannot be entirely attributed to the improper working of the kick starter. The complainant failed to prove that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defect by filing any expert evidence. He complaint even does not state specifically the nature of defect found in the vehicle except the battery discharge and improper working of kick starter and the complainant is not entitled to seek for replacement of the entire vehicle for the alleged minor defects in the vehicle. Mere minor defects and repairs in the vehicle that too one and half year after purchase and after the vehicle has run about 15,000 kms will not entitle the complainant to ask for replacement of new vehicle or its price unless the complainant prove that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle but the complainant failed to establish the same and hence it is found that there  is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the contention of complainant against the opposite parties is not maintainable.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

 

8. Point No.2

           It is found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as  per the above findings.  But at the same time admittedly the vehicle was not taken delivery by the complainant even after Ex.B5 and B6 letters sent by the opposite party after completing the service hence the vehicle is lying with the 1^st opposite party from the year 2009 which is liable to be returned to the complainant by the opposite party in running condition as per the interest of natural justice and equity. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for  compensation  or any other relief as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

                        In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to return the ‘Hero Honda Pleasure Scooter’ referred in the complaint in a running condition to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order copy and the complaint is  disposed off accordingly. There is no order as to cost considering the facts of the case.  The complaint is dismissed against the 2^nd opposite party.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 11^th day of  October 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	11-07-2007	The invoice with delivery receipt
Ex.A2		Vehicle warranty
Ex.A3	29-12-2008	Complainant's letter
Ex.A4	18-02-2009	Medical detail

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1	07-08-2007	Job card copy of 1st free service
Ex.B2	02-11-2007	Job card copy of 2nd free service
Ex.B3	25-12-2008	Quick Service job card copy
Ex.B4	22-01-2009	Quick Service job card copy
Ex. B5	25-2-2009	Copy of letter sent by 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B6	18.03.2009	Copy of letter sent by 1st opposite party to the complainant.

 

 

MEMBER – I               MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT