IN THE CONSUMER DISUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANATHITTADated this the 13th day of May, 2010.Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.132/08 (Filed on 01.09.2008) Between: Manoj Kumar. G., Krishna Bhavan, Thottakkonam Muri, Mudiyoorkonam.P.O., Pandalam Village, Adoor Taluk. (By Adv. Sham Kuruvilla) ….. Complainant And: Manager, Muthoot Honda, Ward No.27, Building No.276, Ground Floor, Kuttippuzha Village, Muthoor.P.O., Thiruvalla. (By Adv. K.C. Biju) ...... Opposite party. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant purchased a Honda Unicon Bike from the opposite party’s showroom on 28.2.05. Thereafter he had been servicing the bike at opposite party’s show room within service period. 3. On 5.6.07 after servicing from opposite party’s show room, complainant himself driven the bike towards his home. On the way he noticed that the said bike became off several times with starting trouble. He made so many attempts to start the bike and at last took the bike to his home. On the next day the complainant has out of station and not used the vehicle. On 89.6.07 complainant try to start the vehicle but fails. There is large omission of smokes and smell is seen from the vehicle. Then the complainant contacted the Manager of opposite party show room so many times. Then opposite party sent a mechanic to his home and examined the vehicle and find that opposite party removed the engine oil during the service and target to fill engine oil. The mechanic filled engine oil and started it. For finding any other fault, they took the vehicle to opposite party’s show room. 4. Complainant visited opposite party’s show room on the same day evening and came to know that the vehicle has examined thoroughly and find that some fault on seal, valve stem. For removing the said parts complainant paid Rs.86/-. Thereafter find the trouble of oil leek, low mileage, low pickup and leak and sound difference on the vehicle’s head. For the rectification of the said defect, the vehicle was in opposite party’s show room for work from 8.6.07 to a5.5.08 by six times with job card and without job card. 5. On 14.5.08 opposite party informed that for rectification of defect parts of holder comp, camsh has to be replaced. Accordingly the said spare parts were replaced and charged Rs.1,482/- from the complainant. Even then the defect persisting till this time. The said defect occurred during the warranty period. It is due to the negligence of the opposite party’s show room. Opposite party imposed higher charges, which also caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Complainant sent advocate notice stating the said facts on 26.5.08 to opposite party. Opposite party received the notice and sent a reply denying the complainant’s claim. Hence this complaint for replacement of a new vehicle or its price with compensation and cost. 6. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party admit that complainant had purchased the two-wheeler Honda ‘Unicorn’ from them. They denied that all the services were not done at opposite party’s service centre. Opposite party’s service men requested the complainant to decarbonize the vehicle, but the complainant refused. Hence the opposite party did not de-carbonize the vehicle. The allegation that the opposite party servicemen missed to fill the oil while servicing the vehicle on 5.6.07 is absolutely false. The opposite party had changed the oil and charged Rs.153/- towards the oil cost. If the opposite party had failed to fill the engine oil at the time of service, the engine chamber will be vacant without oil and definitely the two-wheeler would not ride a furlong further. 7. While the service was going on, on 8.6.07 opposite party informed the complainant the immediate need of de-carbonization, change of seal valve stem and gasket head of the vehicle to rectify the compression weak, sound difference, starting trouble and oil leakage. But the complainant was not ready to afford the payment of de-carbonization. Opposite party thus compelled to limit the repair to change of seal valve stem and gasket head of the vehicle. It is true that the opposite party had charged Rs.86/- towards the cost of seal valve stem and gasket head cover. Certain parts of the vehicle are not covered under warranty, which includes the seal valve stem and gasket head cover. Hence the opposite party charged its cost. According to opposite party, the oil leakage, less mileage and less pick up was caused due to the improper maintenance, irrational handling, irregular servicing, unauthorized/local workshop repairing over speed, use of duplicate parts while repairing in local workshop and reckless driving of the vehicle. 8. The service made on 5.6.07 has no relation with that alleged complaints of oil leakage, less mileage and less pick up. The sound difference and less pick up of the vehicle can be repaired by proper de-carbonization of the vehicle at a lower cost of Rs.1,000/-. But the complainant was not ready to pay for it. The opposite party was not in a position to bear the cost of de-carbonization since it not comes under the warranty contract. Opposite party had not serviced the vehicle from 8.6.07 to 15.5.08 with or without issuing job cards. The opposite party is the authorized dealer and service agent of M/s. Honda Motors & Scooter India Ltd., is duty bound to issue job cards. The complainant hitherto made no service without issuing job cards. The complainant had replaced the holder comp and camsh at the opposite party’s service centre for Rs.1,482/- because these parts does not come under warranty. The opposite party had charged Rs.1,482/- includes the actual spare part cost of Rs.1,135/- plus repairing charge of Rs.347/-. The opposite party had not charged more than the actual cost of the holder comp and camsh. 9. According to opposite party’s, the miserably and arrogant nature of the complainant alone contributed problems in his vehicle. It is the duty of the complainant to avail the benefit of free service and paid service in time. He was not serviced his vehicle in prescribed service dates. He is duty bound to repair the vehicle at his own cost. If there any problems occurred to the vehicle parts, which does not come under the warranty. The complainant was not always willing to make proper repairing on payment and otherwise trying to restrict with small replacements. This kind of repair contributed gradual and consequential damage of the vehicle parts. The opposite party’s service engineers several times reprimand the complainant about his reckless driving, irrational handling and improper maintenance of the vehicle. The opposite party had serviced the vehicle with utmost care and caution. 10. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant had not alleged any manufacturing defect. Since the two-wheeler in question had no manufacturing defect, there is no necessity to replace the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to receive any compensation. Therefore the opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 11. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration. (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Cost? 12. Evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Evidence of opposite party consists of the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4. On opposite party’s side DW2 and DW3 were examined. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard. 13. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 series are the bills issued for repairing the vehicle in opposite party’s show room. Ext.A2 is the copy of advocate notice sent to the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of notice issued to Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Ltd. A4 is the reply notice of Ext.A2. Ext.A5 is the owner’s manual issued by Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Ltd. 14. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4. Ext.B1 is the job card in which shows the complainant’s vehicle is serviced on 5.6.07. Ext.B2 is the office copy of bill dated 7.6.07. Ext.B3 is the job card dated 7.6.07. Ext.B4 is the office copy of bills dated 7.6.07. 15. On the basis of the averment and contention of parties, we perused the entire material on record. It is not disputed that complainant has purchased a two-wheeler Honda ‘Unicorn’ from the opposite party’s show room. The complainant’s grievance is the defective servicing of opposite party. Opposite party’s servicing on 5.6.07 caused the vehicle became off, starting trouble and found that they forget to refill the oil. On a thorough examination of the vehicle and find trouble of oil leak, low mileage, low pick up and sound difference. Even though complainant serviced the vehicle in opposite party’s show room by six times the said defect still persists. 16. Opposite party denied that all the services were not done in their service centre. They changed the oil and charged only Rs.153/- from the complainant. If they not filled the engine oil the vehicle would not ride a furlong further. Complainant has not de-carbonized the vehicle at opposite party’s service centre, it caused compression weak, sound difference, starting trouble and oil leakage. The cost of de-carbonization is not come under the warranty contact. The opposite party had not charged more than the actual cost of the spare parts. All the parts are not covered under the warranty. The actual defects were due to complainant’s improper maintenance, irrational handling, irregular servicing, local workshop repairing, over speed, use of duplicate parts and reckless driving of the vehicle. 17. On a perusal of Ext.A1 series it is revealed that complainant has availed the service of opposite party by several times. Ext.A5 shows that complainant used seven service coupons, even though opposite party does not admitted the service other than 1st and seventh. But they had not produced any material to disprove that such and such date complainant has not serviced in their show room. 18. Even though complainant availed the service of opposite party as per Ext.A1 series, the plea is that his vehicle’s defect is still persisting. But complainant has failed to adduce any expert evidence to prove that whether the defect of the vehicle is due to the deficiency of service of opposite party or any other defect. Though there may have existed some defect in the vehicle, in the absence of better evidence, we are inclined to find any deficiency on the part of opposite party. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. 19. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 13th day of May, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : G. Manoj Kumar Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1, A1(a), A1(b), {} A1(c ), A1(d), A1(e), {} Bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant A1(f) and A1(g) {} A2 : Photocopy of advocate notice dated 26.5.08 sent by the complainant to the opposite party. A3 : Photocopy of letter dated 28.6.08 issued by the complainant to Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Ltd. A4 : Reply notice of Ext.A2. A5 : Owner’s manual issued by Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Ltd. to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : Ajith Paul DW2 : Noby Mathew Rana DW3 : Manu. N. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: B1 : Job card dated 5.6.07 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. B2 : Office copy of bill dated 30.8.06 issued by opposite party to the complainant. B3 : Job card dated 7.6.07 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. B4 : Office copy of bills dated 30.8.06 issued by opposite party to the complainant. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Manoj Kumar. G., Krishna Bhavan, Thottakkonam Muri, Mudiyoorkonam.P.O., Pandalam Village, Adoor Taluk. (2) Manager, Muthoot Honda, Ward No.27, Building No.276, Ground Floor, Kuttippuzha Village, Muthoor.P.O., Thiruvalla. (3) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
