BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 181/2009 Filed on 14.07.2009

Dated: 16.11.2013

Complainant:

Jayan, S/o Appukuttan, T.C 3/605, Syamala Vilasom, Sree Narayana Lane, Santhammoola, Malayinkeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram.

                             (By adv. N.G. Mahesh)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar Dist., Gurgaon, Haryana 122 050.

1. M/s Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd, Marikar Motors, Opp: Secretariat, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. G.S. Kalkura)

This C.C having been taken as heard on 07.10.2013, the Forum on 16.11.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

          Complainant purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 24.03.2008.  The said vehicle had a guarantee period of two years as mentioned in the service book.  The first service is to be done between 750 to 1000 kms or 30 to 45 days whichever is earlier.  For the first service he gave the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party on 17.04.2008.  His allegation is that after this service there was oil leakage and oil sprays from the engine which amounts to manufacturing defect.  This defect was explained to the 2^nd opposite party and the service engineer informed him that no such defect is there in that vehicle.  Thereafter the complainant on 10.06.2008 again took the said vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party and explained the defects and at that time the service engineer and other mechanics opened the engine and informed him that they have cured the defects.  After one week the same defect occurred which was reported to the 2^nd opposite party, but no action was taken by him.  So he issued registered notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties requesting refund or replacement within 15 days.  No reply was given by the opposite parties till date.  So he filed this complaint before this Forum claiming refund or replacement.

          Version was filed by the 2^nd opposite party denying all the allegations of the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant that he had purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from the opposite party is false.  They are not dealing with any sale of Hero Honda Motor cycle as alleged.  In fact they are the dealers and authorized service centre of M/s Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. who are the manufacturers of Honda motor cycle.  Complainant purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle of his own choice on being fully convinced and satisfied with the quality, performance and marketability of the vehicle manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The allegation that the vehicle purchased by the complainant had a guarantee of two years is baseless since the manufacturer has not given any guarantee for the performance of the vehicle but has given only warranty which is applicable as per the terms and conditions of the warranty.  Here the warranty period has been specifically provided in the owner’s manual handed over to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle which is for a period of two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle or 33000 kms whichever is earlier.  Complainant purchased the vehicle on 24.03.2008 and brought the vehicle for first service on 17.04.2008 and for second service on 10.06.2008.  To show the details of service the job cards are produced.  Thereafter, after a lapse of 3 months complainant issued a registered letter alleging falsehood.  In order to maintain good customer relationship and goodwill this opposite party called upon the complainant to bring the vehicle to the service centre to rectify the defects if any.  Apart from this, several telephonic calls were also made to the complainant.  But he did not heed the request till date nor had brought the vehicle for carrying out the other services provided by the manufacturer which is to be carried out as per the service manual.  Even after the receipt of the reply letter, complainant again issued a legal notice on 16.10.2008 claiming for refund or replacement.  So the opposite parties sent a representative who is well known to the complainant and is residing nearby to his residence to bring the vehicle to the service centre.  But nothing happened.  The allegation of the complainant that there was oil leakage and oil spray from the engine after first service amounts of manufacturing defect is baseless and denied.  No such complaint was raised by the complainant on 17.04.2008 or on 10.06.2008 or on 31.07.2009 as alleged by the complainant.  He had been deliberately avoiding the production of the vehicle subsequent to 31.07.2009 to the authorized service centre in order to ascertain the genuineness of the complaint.  After carrying out the second service on 10.06.2009 and paid work on 31.07.2009 complainant never brought the vehicle for carrying out any further service and thus violated the terms of the warranty.  So the opposite party is not in any way responsible for the defect, if any, without carrying the proper services as recommended by the manufacturer.  So the complaint is filed on an experimental basis and is only to be dismissed. 

          Points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether the manufacturing defect of the vehicle is established?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is he eligible for any reliefs as prayed for?

Complainant filed proof affidavit along with 6 documents.  2^nd opposite party also filed affidavit and copies of job cards were produced and marked as Ext. D1 & D2.  Complainant was examined as PW1.    

Points (i) to (iii):- Complainant approached this Forum alleging manufacturing defect for the motor cycle he purchased from the 2^nd opposite party which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  His contention is that the defects occurred after the first free service done by the 2^nd opposite party.  These allegations were denied by the opposite party.  Ext. P1 is the copy of warranty policy in which it is stated that warranty is for 24 months from the date of sale or until the vehicle has been driven for 32000 kms whichever event occurs first.  Exts. P2 and P3 are letters addressed to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party claiming refund or replacement dated 19.09.2008.  Exts. P4 and P5 are legal notice sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties dated 16.10.2008.  Ext. P6 is the copy of the reply notice given by the 2^nd opposite party requesting the complainant to present the vehicle before them for carrying out necessary repair work.  Ext. D1 is the copy of the job card dated 17.04.2008 which is the first free service. Job card for the second free service dated 10.06.2008 is produced and marked as Ext. D2.  Here the complainant is alleging manufacturing defect of a newly purchased motor cycle.  Complainant alleges leakage of oil after the first free service.  Opposite party denies this allegation.  For a fair adjudication of this complaint an expert report as applicable under Sec. 13(c) of Consumer Protection Act is necessary.  Here there is no such report before us.  Complainant produced Exts. P1 to P6 to prove his side, but those are different letters addressed to the opposite parties.  During cross examination he was asked the question whether any expert opinion was taken to prove his allegation, he replied in the negative.  Moreover in his deposition he admits that after the second free service he had done the balance service in a workshop near to his house which is not an authorized one.  So we are not in a position to find out the veracity of the complaint without any evidence.  He alleges that the engine has been opened by the mechanics of the 2^nd opposite party, but details were not seen anywhere in the complaint or in the affidavit.  In his cross examination he admits that opposite party never hesitated to service his vehicle.  Moreover in the job card produced by the opposite party, there is no mentioning of oil leakage or the defects alleged by the complainant.  So complainant failed miserably to establish his case.  Since the manufacturing defect is not established, we are not in a position to deal with other points raised for consideration. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. 

   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of November 2013.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

                                                                   Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

jb     

C.C. No. 181/2009

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Jayan. A.S

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of warranty policy

          P2     - Copy of letter dated 19.09.2008 issued by complainant to 1^st O.P.

          P3     - Copy of letter dated 19.09.2008 issued by complainant to 2^nd O.P.

          P4     - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.10.2008 issued to 1^st O.P.        

P5     - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.10.2008 issued to 2^nd O.P.       

P6     - Copy of letter dated 03.10.2008 issued by Marikar Motors Ltd. to  

             complainant.   

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

          D1     - Copy of job card No. JC 1716 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

          D2     - Copy job card No. JCO 3665 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb