IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of December, 2017
Filed on 17.03.2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.78/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
1.Sri.Rathees.R 1. Manager
Navajyothi Shymas Honda
Pazhaveedu.P.O Kalarkode (North S.D College)
Alappuzha Alappuzha
2..( Impleaded) 2. Registered Office
Sathi(Sathi Amma L) Honda Motor cycle & Scooter Kuthiravattathil, Areekara.P.O India Pvt.Ltd
Chengannur Commercial complex II Sector 49-50
Golf Course Extension Road
Gurgaon 122018
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The 2nd complainant had purchased a motor bike manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The said vehicle was registered on 13-6-2016. After 4 months in October the vehicle shows accelerator complaint and entrusted to the 1st opposite party branch at chengannur. Thereafter the vehicle shows the same complaint again and entrusted to the 1st opposite party on 25/1/2017. On both the occasions the opposite party has charged repairing charges from the complainant even though the vehicle is under warranty. More over the vehicle was stopped all of a sudden while the 1st complainant was riding the vehicle on a crowded road on 24/1/2017due to the accelerator complaint. According to the complainant the opposite party has sold an inferior quality product . The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2.Version of the 1st and 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. Complainant filed this complaint without any basis and only on an experimental basis with the view of obtain undue benefit. The alleged incident on 24-01-2017 is absolutely false and a fabricated story and hence the opposite parties denied the same. If the proper changing of the gear of the vehicle is not done at the appropriate time the vehicle may be stopped abruptly and which is not due to the defect of the vehicle but it must be due to defective driving. The vehicles that are being manufactured and sold by these opposite parties are of very high quality attained international accreditation and acceptability. The Opposite parties are very reputed company and the Honda is an internationally famous automobile company. There is absolutely no defect whatsoever for the vehicle referred to in the complaint. This is fortified by the expert report given in this case. The petitioner did not suffer any monetary loss or mental agony and he is not entitled for any compensation or any amount from any of the Opposite parties. He is not entitled to recover any costs from these Opposite parties. The allegation that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect is absolutely false and hence denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant did not suffer any mental agony or loss or hardship. The opposite parties are not liable for any loss or damages. It is submitted that at the time of delivery of the vehicle itself it was informed and also incorporated in the owners manual that the vehicle is available four free services at various intervals as stated in the Manuel and the owner of the vehicle has only availed 2nd and 3rd free services and not availed the 1st and 4th one. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and docuements Ext.A1 –A3 were marked. 1st Opposite party was examined as RW1 documents Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 were marked. Expert Report was marked as Ext.C1.
4. . Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. Issues 1 and 2
The case of the complainant is that 2nd complainant had purchased a Honda Unicorn 150 motor bike for the use of the 1st complainant. After 4 months from the date of purchase the vehicle shows complaints with regard to the accelerator and it was repaired at the 1st opposite party branch at chengannur. After 2 months the vehicle again shows complaint with regards to the accelerator and the 1st complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 1st opposite party for repairing. According to the complainant even though the vehicle is under warranty on both the occasions they have charged repairing charges from the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the vehicle shows missing problem and back sound. According to the complainant the opposite party failed to rectify the defects and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has charged for repairing the accelerator complaint during that warranty period and also the vehicle shows missing problem and back sound and the opposite parties failed to rectify the said defects. In order to prove the missing problem and back sound an expert commissioner who is an Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector is appointed he inspected the vehicle and filed report stating that no missing is noticed during the trail run for a distance of 43 km on rough and normal road. The expert has inspected the vehicle on 28/6/2017 and on 17/7/2017 and on both the occasions no abnormalities could be noticed with regard to the missing. In his report he specifically stated that no missing was noticed during the trail run carried out on two occasions and regarding the back sound of the vehicle it was only due to the knocking of tool box inside the seat cabin and the same was cured by placing the tool box in the proper portion. Further allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has charged for repairing the accelerator complaint during the warranty period. According to the complainant the vehicle showed accelerater complaint on two occasions and on both the occasions the opposite party has changed from the complainant. According to the opposite party the first time the complainant is with regard to the throttle and 2nd time the defect with regard to the cable and since it is a paid service and the said parts not covered under warranty the opposite party has charged an amount of Rs. 94 and Rs.49 from the complainant. In the Ext.C1, commission report no defect was noticed by the expert. So we can’t direct the opposite party to rectifying the defects of the vehicle. On verifying the documents it can be seen that the opposite party has charged an amount from the complainant for repairing the accelerator complaint during the warranty period. So they have committed deficiency in service and is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and caused to him.
In the result the complaint is allowed partly. Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) towards costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) .
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Ratheesh R(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of RC Book
Ext.A2 - Copy of Service record sheet
Ext.A3 series - Copy of Cash credit bill
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - JobCard dtd. 25/1/2017
Ext.B2 - Vehicle Service History
Ext.B3 - Job Description
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
