Orissa

Rayagada

CC/125/2018

Gopinath Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Minoru Kato Managing Director Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Dec 2019

ORDER

            DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       125         / 2018.                                 Date.  21       .12. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

                                                           

Sri Gopinath Sahu, S/O: Late Gadadhara Sahu, Gouam Nagar,  5^th. Lane,  Raniguda Farm, Po/Dist:Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha). Cell No. 9437118920.              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Minoru Kato, Managing Director, Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ld., Commercial Complex-II, Sector-49-50, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana -122018, India.

2.Ramanujam Ranganathan, Director, AMCO Batteries Ltd., 139,  Velachery Main Road,  Guindy, Chennai- 600 032, Land Mark- Next to 137 Turf.

3.The Proprietor, Om Automobiles, TATA benz Square, Po:Berhampur, Dist:Ganjam, Odisha, Pin No. 760002.

4.The Proprietor, M/S Sri Aditya Honda, J.K.road,  Po/Dist:Rayagadaa, 765001, Odisha.

                                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps.      :-    Set  Exparte.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non  replacement of Battery of  Honda Brand CB Unicorn(CBF) 150 MH Motor cycle during the warranty  period  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the O.Ps  neither   entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1(One) years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps.  were set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

                Undisputedly the complainant had purchased  a Honda Brand  CB Unicorn (CBF) 150 MH Motor Cycle bearing Engine No. KC31E8029391 and chasis No. ME4KC311CJ8229397      from the O.P. No. 3 on Dt.16.03.2018   on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.72,342/- vide invoice No.OR03000117V10870 (Copies of the Tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). The O.Ps. have   sold  the  above two wheeler  to the complainant providing  one and half  year warranty period  inter alia other warranty and guarantees towards the other components of the motor cycle. The above two wheeler  was fitted with one battery No. OZB8831331 manufactured by the O.P. No.2.

            The main grievance of the complainant is that during warranty period the battery of  above two wheeler  found defect but the O.Ps were could not be replaced with a new one   inspite of repeated contact  with the O.Ps.  Hence this C.C. case.

It further appears that prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had made complaint to the O.Ps on Dt.17.4.2018 and on Dt.12.7.2018 during servicing of the  aboove two wheeler, but they failed to replace the battery.  Hence it appears that the O.Ps  have been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

Again it  is observed  despite notice service of this forum, the OP.s neither did cared to file any reply or tried to redress the dispute with the complainant. The above two wheeler  being covered with 1 ½  year   comprehensive warranty & 3 years extended warranty, the OP.s neither taken any action assured by the company manual or satisfies the complainant in any manner. So we feel that, the action of OPs throughout the total transaction is illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and for which the complainant going through mental agony, inflicted financial losses, hence filed this complaint under compelling circumstances. 

Brief resume  of evidence led by the complainant in the present case is that the complainant  in support of his case has filed  and placed reliance upon various documents  marked as Annexures.

In this case we have heard from the complainant and have also gone through  the record of the case minutely. 

In the present case, this fact is clearly proved on record   which  filed by the complainant  before the  forum that the complainant    Honda Unicorn  which was purchased   from the  O.Ps immediately after  its purhase had  developed   defect  towards  battery  of the two wheeler and  was not in working order, as such  complainant had even contacted the O.Ps on phone and also  informed to the  O.Ps through  service centre.  Despite of making complaint to the O.Ps, the  battery was not  replaced with  a new one    as requested by the complainant. As such  the complainant  in this  case has been able to prove deficincy of service    on the part of the O.Ps, since  the complainant’s evidence  in the present case stand un-rebutted.

For better appreciation  this forum  relied citations  which are mentioned here under:-

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case  2005  Page No. 527 (NS) in the case of Meera & Co Ltd. Vrs. Chinar Syntex Ltd  where in the Hon’ble National Commission  observed “Consumer-    Generating set purchased -  defects developed  during  warranty  period - repairs done on payment - dealer can not be absolved from his liability   because manufacturer has not  been impleaded- dealer deficient in service- order  to dealer   refund   amount with interest to the complainant.”

Again It is held and reported  in CTJ-2005, Page No. 1208 where in  the hon’ble  National Commission   observed  “Both the dealer & manufacturer of the  product having defects  in it, are jointly and severally liable to the  purchaser, because he knows only the dealer from whom he purchased that  product and not its manufacturer”. 

 

Further   It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed “ we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well know that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.”

           

            Again it  is  held and  reported in  Consumer Law today 2014(1) page No. 153 where in the  Hon’ble  Goa State Commission observed “The tax invoice duly   signed by dealer can be considered to be an agreement between the parties subject to which the   sale was   made to the  consumer – liability for defect in article sold both the dealer and manufacturer  are jointly and severally. 

 

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh observed  the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the two wheeler, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief, which  in the  instant case was not done.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

 

 

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

The  Opposite Parties  1 & 2 (Manufacturer) are      directed to  replace the Battery  of  Unicorn Honda  two wheeler  with a new one free of cost  with fresh  warranty   and pay compensation of Rs.1,000/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within  60 months from the date of receipt of this order,

The O.P  No. 3 &4  are  ordered   to  refer the matter to the O.P. No.1 & 2  Manufacturer for  early compliance of the above order  and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No.1 & 2  (Manufacturer) to provide satisfying service  for which he is entitled.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 60 days from the  date of receipt   of   this order.

                Dictated and  corrected  by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on             21^st.       day    of   December , 2019.

 

MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT