BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.383 of 2019
Date of Instt. 03.09.2019
Date of Decision: 14.12.2022
Smt. Rama Sethi w/o Shri Sanjeev Sethi, 291, J. P. Nagar, Jalandhar City 144002.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Honda Cars India Ltd., Greater Noida, U. P.
2. M/s G. S. Autoworld Pvt. Ltd., Near Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Amritsar Byepass Road, Jalandhar, Punjab.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Ashok Sethi, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. M. K. Jain, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh. Nitin Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he has purchased one Honda Amaze VMT (Petrol) car on 12.06.2018 for Rs.7,97,000/- by making full and final payment through Drafts, vide bill/invoice dated 12.06.2018. From the very beginning, a noise from dashboard was noticed inside the cabin of the car. The family members of the complainant had visited the Honda Service Centre various times and asked the service centre engineers to set right the defect in the car. They tried to set it right, but the defect could not be removed by them. The family member of the complainant visited many dates i.e. 10.07.2018, 14.09.2018, 11.10.2018, 26.10.2018, 07.12.2018, 23.01.2019, 05.02.2019, 06.02.2019, 12.02.2019 and finally on 31.05.2019 and customer invoices were prepared and claimed to have removed the defect, which could not actually be removed. In the first nine repair invoice prepared by the service centre, the fact of repairing the car for the defect of emitting noise has not been mentioned. This is in order to conceal their inefficiency in repairing the defect. In addition to this, it is also mentioned that rather than removing the defect, the service centre engineers caused scratches on the car at various places and once wind screen of the car was caused to be broken by them while opening the dash board and repairing the components. This broken wind screen was then repaired. However, in the final invoice dated 31.05.2019, under remark No.4, it is admitted that slight noise observed from col top side which has again been claimed to has been removed, but it is still not completely removed. Although the broken wind screen and the noise from dashboard has been partially repaired by them, but this act not only resulted into devaluation of his new car but also caused mental agony to the complainant since his new car has been rendered to be the repaired and old car. In the meantime, the complainant gave a written letter through email to the Manufacturer Company on 27.01.2019, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle or refund the entire amount paid to it alongwith interest at the market rater alongwith an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are false, frivolous and motivated. The complainant is deliberately trying to mislead the Commission by distorting the facts of the case and not disclosing the true facts of the case. Accordingly, the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed with costs as the same is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complainant has miserably failed to bring the present complaint within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, the complainant has blatantly failed to raise any allegation against the answering OP and has failed to even address the critical aspects as outlined in Section 2 (1) (c ) of the Act to make the answering OP liable. Even otherwise, the complaint does not disclose any manufacturing defect as envisaged in Section 2 (1) (f) or any deficiency in service as defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act against the answering OP. Therefore, considering the aforesaid objection, this Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with appropriate pecuniary costs as envisaged in Section 26 of the Act. It is further averred that it is not the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question suffers from kind of defect falling within the purview of inherent/manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to establish in his complaint any particular manufacturing defect that has persisted in his vehicle. It is further averred that 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 defect or not. The allegation of defect in a vehicle is not to be taken to be as a gospel truth on mere statement but it is required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint does not fall in the preview of consumer as such the present complaint is not maintainable under the law and is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, the present complaint is neither a consumer nor fall in the category of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as such, the present complaint deserves dismissal. The dispute raised by the complainants in the present complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the Act. The controversy involved in the present complaint is not a consumer dispute. The proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Act are nonest, null and void and without jurisdiction. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as well as mis-joinder of parties and cause of action. The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable and untenable in law, besides being extraneous and irrelevant having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter under reference. Thus is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the parties very minutely.
7. It is admitted and proved that the complainant purchased a car for a sum of Rs.7,97,000/-. The invoice has been proved as Ex.1. It has been alleged by the complainant that from the very beginning a noise from the dashboard was noticed from inside the cabin of the car. They visited the Honda service centre various times and asked the service centre engineers to set right the defect in the car. Despite their efforts to set it right, the defect could not be removed by them. The complainant has proved the tax invoices when they visited the OPs as Ex.2A to Ex.2J. Due to deficiency in service, the OPs did not mention in the repair invoices regarding the noise coming from the dashboard. While repairing the dashboard and components, even the wind screen was also broken by the OP. The car was new one and continuously visiting the service centre for the repair of the car caused the complainant mental agony. It has further been pointed out by the counsel for the complainant that written letter was also written to the manufacturing company on 27.01.2019 stating therein that the car of the complainant is having manufacturing defect when he was asked to visit the service centre and in the service centre, the engineers replaced various parts of the car, but even then the noise from dashboard from inside the cabin of the car was still persisting.
8. The contention of the OP No.1 is that the complainant has not alleged anywhere that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 as the deficiency in service, if any, can be on the part of the dealer and not on the part of the manufacturer. There is no liability of the manufacturer. The complainant has not proved that the car was having any manufacturing defect. No expert opinion has been placed on record by the complainant. Since, there is no manufacturing defect, therefore the warranty obligation of the OP No.1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part, which proves the defect within limit of warranty free of cost. He has relied upon ‘Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr.’ reported in AIR 2006 SC 1586 and ‘Dr. Hema Vasantial Dakoria Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Ors.’ reported in II (2005) CPJ 102 (NC). He has further submitted that there is no directed relationship of the complainant with the OP No.1 as the direct dealership agreement is between the OP No.1 and OP No.2. The OP No.1 is just a manufacture and can be liable only in a cases of manufacturing defect. The main grudge of the complainant is against the OP No.2. Therefore, the OP No.1 is not liable as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.1.
9. The contention of the OP No.2 is that no complaint was ever made by the complainant during the period of free service. On 10.07.2018 on the representation of the complainant, the OP No.2 asked the complainant to leave the vehicle for diagnose, but the complainant did not leave the vehicle and brought the vehicle on 03.09.2018 with the complaint of checking of dashboard vibration. After inspecting and checking the dashboard and vehicle, the Column Steering of the vehicle was replaced free of cost and the problem of the complainant was resolved. The complainant visited the service centre on different times for free service and with the complaint of abnormal noise coming from the rare side from silencer. Again the problem of the complainant was resolved as the change of Torque Rod and Boot was recommended to be changed. It has further been alleged that the complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the OP No.2 as the roads where the vehicle is being plied is not in good condition. The complainant just wants to get the job done free of costs. There is no grouse of the complainant against the OP No.2. All the grievances of the complainant were removed.
10. The car was purchased on 12.06.2018. The job card dated 03.09.2018 Ex.2(b) shows that there was problem in the vehicle i.e. ‘the vehicle forwarded to HCIL and the same was visited by the Honda Tech Line and the issue of the complainant regarding the dashboard vibration sound while release clutch and glove box open automatically was removed’. This was just after three months of the purchase of the car. Similarly on 10.10.2018 Ex.2(c) shows that ‘there was complaint of RR under Body Noise Still’. On 25.10.2018, Ex.2(d) shows that ‘abnormal noise coming from rear side from silencer, KIR-KIR noise coming from glove box side on rough road, vehicle body vibrating while reversing the car. So, Torque Rod and Boot was recommended to be changed’. Similarly, on 23.01.2019 Ex.2(e) shows that ‘dashboard noise to be checked and dashboard nut bold adjourned to’. On 30.01.2019 Ex.2(g) shows that ‘tak-tak noise coming from dashboard side on rough road and Col Top Grill was recommended to be changed’. On 06.02.2019 Ex.2(h) shows that ‘abnormal noise coming around dashboard’. On 12.02.2019 Ex.2(i) shows that ‘front winder shield crack’. Similarly, on 30.05.2019 Ex.2(j) shows that ‘2nd checkup pain treatment, battery test, dashboard has noise and the recommendations are Service done as per HCIL schedule, coating recheck done, battery testing done-found OK, 1st day road test conducted of 30 KM (up & down) on highway-no noise observed. 2nd day road test done 15 km (up & down) slight noise observed from col top side thus based on customer observation (Video Recording) we had reposted the col top as per Honda standard and done the basic setting of wiper arms. Against conducted the road test and no noise observed again. Car has been delivered under observation to customer.’ This shows that from 03.09.2018 to 30.05.2019, the complainant has been visiting the OPs for the redressal of the problem arising in his car from time to time. This was not only one problem, but he faced number of problems in his newly purchased car for Rs.7,97,000/-. Ex.3 also shows that he has written a letter through email to the OP that the car is having manufacturing defect in the dashboard from day one and he has been visiting the OP number of times, but to no effect. Ex.OP-1/B, proves that he was asked to leave the car, but again in reply to email, he again has stated that he has visited the service centre number of times and despite calling the expert from the OP, his problem has not been redressed.
11. The contention of the OPs that his problem was redressed and no complaint was ever moved is not tenable as the service job cards and the emails clearly proves that number of times he has been visiting the service centre and has been telling his problem and sending emails also. Therefore, the question that no complaint was ever made is not tenable. The further contention of the OPs that just to take the car checked free of cost, the complainant has been visiting the service centre is also not tenable as perusal of all the job cards clearly show that every time he has brought to the notice of the OPs the problem of dashboard noise and other problems, he was facing in the car. The contention of the OP that no expert opinion has been brought on record by the complainant is also not tenable as the complainant has been visiting the OP’s service centre time and again with the complaints and from time to time, the wind screen was changed, torque road and boot was needed to be changed, noise was from the dashboard as well as there was problem of steering and box, so these all are the problems which were asked to be solved by the OPs. Had there been not any such problem, there must be some opinion of the expert or engineers of the OP to the effect that the complainant’s car is not having any problem or any defect. From the date of the purchase and his first visit to the OP till filing of the present complaint, he has been complaining about the noise in the dashboard. Despite the efforts made by the OPs to repair the same and to remove the noise coming from the dashboard, the matter was not redressed. This clearly shows that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
12. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainants is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the full price of the car to the complainant and the complainant is directed to return the defective car to the OPs at the time of receiving the amount of the car. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
14.12.2022 Member Member President
