IN THECONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  30^th DAYOF OCTOBER 2021

              Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

      Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

      Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.169/2018

Prince Devaraj,

DevarajVilasom,

Puthenkulam P.O.,   Kollam District.

(Adv.R.Harilal)                                                                                :           Complainant           

V/S

1. Managing Director,

          M/s.HondaSiel Cars India Ltd.,

         Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41,

         Surajpur, KasnaRoad,Greater Noida,

       Industrial Development Area,

       GautamBudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

         Pin 201 306.                                                 

       (By Adv.Ninan&Adv.Mathew)                                                     :          Opposite parties

2. Proprietor and Authorised Dealer,

         M/s.Peninsular Honda,

        NH 47, Near Karyavattom Campus,

         KazhakoottamP.O.,Thiruvananthapuram 695 582.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant has purchased a Honda City 1.5 VMT Car from the 2^nd opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.8,40,845/- as per retail invoice No.2011/12/122 dated 04.10.2011.Thereafter said vehicle was properly serviced with the authorised service stations of theM/s.HondaSiel Cars India Ltd in time.The said vehicle, after running 37688 KM, was serviced on 14.05.2017 at M/s. Muthoot Automotive India Pvt.Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram which is the authorized service station of the above said car manufacturing unit.Then they recommended the complainant to replace the front rear sound box by R/P Steering Rack Assy CAN, and it was further told that the above said default was due to the manufacturing defect of the said vehicle.Thereafter the complainant serviced the said vehicle in 44148 KM with the authorized dealer M/s.Pothens Service Pvt.Ltd. on 12.09.2017.They also suggested the replacement of the steering box.Again on 07.10.2017 when it was serviced at M/s. Peninsular Honda, Thiruvananthapuram the complainant was told to replace the steering box.

The said manufacturing defect of the vehicle was notice in a running kilometre of 37688 and the complainant directly approached the 2^nd opposite partyand requested them to replace the steering box.But the opposite parties were not ready to replace the same despite it was a manufacturing defect.The opposite parties are liable to replace the defective part of the said vehicle without charging any amount from the complainant.Finally on 22.11.2017 the complainant sent a registered advocate notice to the opposite parties seeking replacement of the defective part of the vehicle.Though the opposite parties received the advocate notice they have not cared to replace the defective part of the vehicle.Hence the complaint.

The 1^st opposite party further contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has failed to implead M/S Muthoot Automotive India Pvt.Ltd and M/S Pothen Service Pvt.Ltd., authorized service centre of the answering opposite party where the complainant allegedly got the subject car serviced.The complainant has failed to produce any document to substantiate his claim that the subject vehicle was serviced at the above mentioned service station as alleged.The complainant has failed to show any defect or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under sections 2(f), (g) of the Act.The complainant has not relied on any evidence such as an automobile expert/engineer’s expert report in order to ascertain whether the subject car was suffering from any manufacturing defect or not.The allegation of manufacturing defect in a vehicle is not to be taken to be a gospel truth on mere statement but it is required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence.

The complainant has not stated true facts and has now come with false and untenable claim against the 1^st opposite party in such a malafide manner.The complaint is vague and would contain unwarranted concerns with his vehicle and does not specify any particular cause of action which has triggered the complaint.The present complaint is totally misconceived, false, vexatious and devoid of any cause of actionand the same has been filed with ulterior motive only to harass the 1^st opposite party.Therefore same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

In spite of receipt of notice the 2^nd opposite party has not appeared before the commission nor filed any version.Hence the 2^nd opposite party was set exparte.

In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacedthe defective steering box  by a newone or in the alternativeentitled to get refund of the value of the product?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed?
4. Reliefs and Costs?

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral documentary evidence of Exts.P1to P3 and complainant has not adduced any oral evidence though opportunity was granted.   The 1^st opposite party who filed version has not adduced any evidence either  oral nor documentary.  Both parties have not advanced any oral argument nor filed any notes of argument.

Point 1 to 3

            For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together.  As per the complaint the complainant has purchased a Honda City 1.5 VMT Car from the 2^nd opposite party on 04.12.2011 by paying an amount of Rs.8,40,845/- vide retail invoice No.2011/12/122.  But there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has purchased any such car from the 2^nd opposite party nor the car was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party M/s Honda Siel Cars Pvt.Ltd.  The contested 1^st opposite party would contend that car manufacturing company’s name is Honda Cars India Ltd.  But the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence that he purchased the car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.  Definitely while purchasing a new car a booklet or brochurecontaining the valuable information regarding the vehicle will be supplied.  The said brochure will indicatethe correct name of the manufacturing company name and address of authorized dealer and authorized service centres.  But that booklet is not seen produced and not got marked in evidence.  The complainant has not even produced the invoice or bill or warranty obtained by him while purchasing the car at least to prove that he has purchased any such car.  Ext. P1 is a photocopy of alawyer notice.  Ext.P2 is the postal receipt and Ext.P3 is the postal acknowledgment card evidencing that the said notice was sent to both opposite parties and it was received by the 2^nd opposite party.  The averments in the complaint coupled with Ext.P1 to P3 would indicate that the complainant has purchased the car during the year 2011 that thecar was properly serviced with the authorised service stations of the  M/s.HondaSiel Cars India Ltd.  The complainant has availed the services of the car on 14.05.2017 from M/s. Muthoot Automotive India Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Pothens Service Pvt.Ltd. on 12.09.2017 and serviced at M/s. Peninsular Honda, Thiruvananthapuram.  At the time of services in the Muthoot Automobile India Pvt.Ltd. on 14.05.2017 they suggested to replace the steering box and the said defect was noted in a running kilometre of 37688.  Subsequently he subject his vehicle to two more service centres of the vehicle.  All the 3 service centres unanimously suggested to replace the gear box of the car.  According to the complainant it is a manufacturing defect.  Hence the complainant had made many requests to the 2^nd opposite party to replace the same.  But the 2^nd opposite party was not amenable for the same.  According to the complainant it is the liability of the opposite parties to replace the defective part of the said vehicle without charging any amount from the complainant as it is a manufacturing defect.  Complainant has not produced any reliable and convincing evidence to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 

            In this connection it is pertinent to point out that even according to the complainant the Muthoot Automotive Pvt.India Ltd. has found out that the front rear sound box by replacing steering Rack Assy CAN after more than 5¾ years of purchasing the vehicle.  Usually a new vehicle will not have warranty and extended warranty for more than 5 years.  The complainant has tactfully not produced the warranty to prove the terms of warranty.  Warranty is usually given to new vehicle for 3 years or 50,000 km.  Even if the complainant has obtained extended warranty the maximum period covered under warranty will be 5 years. The complainant without producing the warranty is not expected to claim the benefit of warranty  for a 5¾ year old vehicle.  It is true that the vehicle has not run the maximum kilometre which is permitted to run within the warranty period but the age of the vehicle is themain criteria to apply warranty conditions.  As the warranty period is already over, the 2^nd opposite party has rightly insisted the complainant to pay charges for replacement of the defective steering rack Assy CAN.  In the circumstances we find no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of any of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.  Points answered accordingly against the complainant. 

Point No.4

In view of our finding with regard to point No.1 to 3 we find no merit in the complaint.  In the result complaint stands dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 30^th  day of  October 2021.

STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

  E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

        S.SANDHYA  RANI:Sd/-

                                                                                                                   Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1              : Photocopy of a lawyer notice 

Ext.P2              : Postal receipt

Ext.P3              : Postal acknowledgment card

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil