Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 629.
Instituted on : 6.11.2017.
Decided on : 21.01.2022
Raj Kumar, aged 51 years son of Sh. Maha Singh, resident of village Charkhi Dadri, Ward no.16, Distt. Charkhi Dadri.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
Merit Honda, Plot No.161, HSIIDC Kutana, Hissar Road, Rohtak through its Managing Director/Proprietor. ..…….……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Vijay Kumar Chhikara, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Vikas Nain, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of Honda Amaze Car bearing registration no.HR-19J-5443 with warranty till 80000 km. or 2nd July, 2018 and he regularly serviced his vehicle time to time from the respondent’s service centre. On 18.8.2017, pre-service check was done by an employee of Honda namely, Mr. Sandeep Kumar and found that there was some problem in RR-Axle. After that car service job card of the complainant was filled by Sh. Pawan Budhwar Service Advisor. The complainant told him regarding the problem in the vehicle i.e. A.C., all four side window glass, dryclean and the voice in beam R.R. Axle. On 19.8.2017, the complainant visited the respondent service centre but no work was done by respondent employee and they told the complainant to left his vehicle for two more days. On 24.8.2017, the complainant again visited the respondent service centre to take his car but again Mr. Pawan Budhwar/Service Advisor filled the job card of the complainant and assured the complainant that the job will be done within two days. On 27.8.2017, the complainant again visited respondent service centre to take his vehicle but employee of respondent said that Beam R.R. Axle repair work not done and only A.C. repair work was done. On 30.8.2017, the complainant visited respondent service center and again told about all the problems which were earlier mentioned in job card. In the job card there is false entry that all work done, but in reality no work was done by the respondent. In this regard, son of the complainant emailed a complaint to All India Honda customer care vide complaint no.18147123961 but till date the problem of the complainant was not solved. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The complainant also served a legal notice to the respondent through his counsel but the respondent has not paid any heed. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to repair the car of complainant upto his full satisfaction and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment as well as Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the complainant did not service his car properly and timely and there was delay/gap of two services between the scheduled of service. It is further submitted that it is necessary for the customer to get service his vehicle properly and timely for availing the benefit of warranty as in the said case the complainant did not get service of his vehicle properly and timely so he cannot get benefit of the warranty. It is further submitted that there was no any delay caused by the respondent for repairing as well as delivering the vehicle to the complainant. It is further submitted that the vehicle was properly repaired as per the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant only once visited the office of the respondent and after that he never visited to the office of the respondent. It is further submitted that there was no any deficiency in service on the part of respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence on dated
3.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.R-1 and has also tendered documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 in additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 12.09.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main contention of the respondent is that complainant has not got serviced his vehicle properly and timely so the benefit of the warranty cannot be given to him. It has further submitted that there was a gap of two services between the scheduled services. To prove this fact respondent has placed on record so many job sheets in his evidence. The service interval record of the vehicle in question has been placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R2. As per Ex.R2, the vehicle was served on dated 02.01.2016 as paid service and at that time the vehicle was run upto 41537kms. As per Ex.R2 again vehicle brought in the service station of respondent on dated 20.09.2017 for paid service and at that time the vehicle was run upto 67685kms as per meter reading.
6. We have perused the other documents placed on record by the respondent. As per Ex.R11 vehicle was visited on 19.03.2016 mileage was 48000kms, as per Ex.R12, 24.05.2016 mileage was recorded in the meter of the vehicle as 54443kms. as per Ex.R13 on 18.08.2017 mileage was 65624 kms. and as per Ex.R14 on 27.08.2017 mileage was 65933 kms. These are the documents placed on record by the respondent himself and the fact mentioned in the above Exhibhits i.e. Ex.R10 to Ex.R14 are contradictory with the facts mentioned in Ex.R2. Moreover as per respondents a note has been mentioned on the job sheet dated 20.09.2017 i.e. Ex.R10 that “ Need to some part this Veh./both arms/both shoker boot/brack pad/ disc/rear shoker RH side/Two tyre/splasegard/dadxl/all door glass machine replace, ect/All work refuse by customer” Meaning thereby the complainant refused to replace these parts. As per complainant he visited in the service centre/workshop of the respondent time and again for the service of his vehicle. Complainant has placed on record Ex.C7 a job sheet dated 24.08.2017. The perusal of the job sheet shows that RR axle amounting to Rs.18769.07 was replaced by the respondent and this part was replaced on payment basis. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20914/- on dated 24.08.2017 to the opposite party. The complainant has placed on record document Ex.C2 to prove the fact that he has availed the extended warranty and paid an amount of Rs.7150/-. As per complainant the vehicle was within warranty period upto 02.07.2018 or upto 80000 kms. In both the situations, the vehicle of the complainant covers under the extended warranty. Copy of job sheet dated 24.08.2017 has not been placed on record by the respondent for the reasons best known to him. Regarding the plea of opposite party that vehicle was not got serviced by the complainant properly and timely, it is observed that if the vehicle has not been serviced timely in that situation, RR Axle could not be damaged. If a vehicle has not been serviced timely, in that situation, a technical and mechanical defect can be arise but in the vehicle in question such type of technical or mechanical defect cannot be occurred. Respondent has not placed on record any report that the complainant has not properly and timely serviced the vehicle in question in his workshop and due to the negligence of the complainants any defect has been occurred in the vehicle in question. But as per job sheet dated 24.08.2017 RR Axle was damaged and same was to be repaired/replaced under warranty but the same has not been done under warranty. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is also on record that no report has been placed on record by the opposite party to prove that due to non service of vehicle, such type of defects occurred in the vehicle. On the other hand their own documents shows that complainant has brought the vehicle to the service centre so many times for service but the vehicle of the complainant was not properly serviced by the respondent which amounts to deficiency in service.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20914/- (Rupees twenty thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.11.2017 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% on the awarded amount from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.01.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member
