IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 17th day of May 2022.
Filed on 28.10. 2021
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. P R Sholy, B.A., LLB (Member) In
CC/No.256 /2021
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Vinayan M, 1. M/s Palace Honda,
Sindooram, Evoor South, Ramapuram,
Behind Court, Keerikkadu P O,
Mavelikkara – 69010 Kayamkulam – 690508.
(Party in Person) (Ninan & Mathew Advocates)
2. M/s Honda Cars India Ltd.,
Rep. by CEO, Plot No.A-1
Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna
Road, Greater Noida Industrial
Development Area, Gautam Budha
Nagar, Utterpradesh – 201306.
(Adv. Abhilash C Soman)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
1st opposite party is a business firm engaged in the sales and service of Honda cars produced by the 2nd opposite party. Complainant regularly undertakes service and repairs at the service station of the 1st opposite party.
2. Complainant is the owner of Honda Amaze Diesel car with registration No.KL 31 G 1227. Within 6 years the head portion of the immobilizer / key came off from the metal portion, which the complainant replaced with a new immobilizer / key through the first opposite party paying around Rs.5000/- on 08.02.2020. The new key brought through the 1st opposite party was defective as the key could be inserted only on one side despite that earlier key can be inserted upside down also. When the complainant pointed out this defect, the service personnel took the key back and returned the same after rectifying the defect from their Kollam service depot.
3. The key brought after rectifying the defect was found bit shaky between the metal portion and head portion. When complaint was made it was assured that it was of little consequence.
4. As apprehended the head portion came off from the metallic portion within a period of sixteen months. The matter was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party by an e-mail dtd.02.08.2021. 1st opposite party again demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for replacing the key totally disowning the defect. The defect occurred when the key was taken for the lathe work to Kollam. The product supplied by the opposite parties suffered from defective craftsmanship and lacks in quality and hence the same kind of defect repeats. Hence they are liable to replace the defective key with a new one. The denial to replace the key or to pay compensation is unfair trade practice and amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite parties to replace the defective key with a new one free of cost and complainant is also seeking an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as cost.
5. 1st opposite party though filed vakalath did not file any version. 2nd opposite party filed a memo of appearance and produced satisfaction note dated 07.01.2022 issued by the complainant. Complainant filed chief affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A3. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
6. Points for determination are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties as prayed for ?
- Reliefs and cost?
7. Point No.1 and 2
PW1, the complainant is the registered owner of Honda Amaze diesel car bearing registration No. KL 31 G 1227 which he purchased during January 2014. After about 6 years the head portion of the immobilizer/ key came out from the metal portion and it was replaced by the opposite parties and demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/-. However on 08/2/2020 the said key was found defective. Though complainant pointed out the said defect it was assured that it is of little consequences. However after about 16 months the same complaint was repeated and when complaint was made, 1st opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- for replacing the key. It is alleged that the product became defective for the 2nd time due to manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint was filed for giving a direction to the opposite parties to replace the key free of cost and for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony. However after filing the complaint the key was replaced on 07.01.2022. On 17.12.2021 1st opposite party was set exparte, since they did not appear inspite of receipt of notice. However on 09.02.2022 a vakalath was filed without filing an application to set aside the exparte order. On 17.02.2021 2nd opposite party was represented by an advocate through a memo of appearance. However version was not filed. Complainant filed chief affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A3. He was cross examined by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd opposite party. Since the key was replaced the 1st relief sought in the complaint is not sought in the chief affidavit. Now the only question remaining is whether complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony. According to PW1, the complainant, he purchased the vehicle during January 2014 and within 6 years the key became defective and it was replaced by collecting an amount of Rs.5000/- on 08.02.2020. Again the same defect occured after about 16 months and opposite parties demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- for replacing the key. On 09.02.2022 counsel for the 2nd opposite party filed memo stating that the key was replaced on 07.01.2022 and a satisfaction note was also produced. It is seen signed by the complainant. However it is noticed that though the complaint was dated 02.08.2021 the key was replaced only on 07.01.2022. It is to be remembered that this case was filed before this Commission on 28.10.2021and after the intervention of this Commission the key was replaced on 07.01.2022. According to complainant there was much delay for replacing the key and so he sustained mental agony and hence he is entitled for compensation. From the evidence on record it can be seen that though a complaint was made on 02.08.2021 regarding the defective key it was replaced only on 07.01.2022. As a matter of fact it will be difficult for one to use the vehicle if the key is not proper. There is a delay of more than 4 months which amounts to deficiency of service for replacing the key and according to PW1 only after filing this complaint and notice was issued to the opposite parties the key was replaced. Before that they demanded Rs.5000/- for replacing the key. Since the key is already replaced the first relief sought has become infructuous. Complainant is seeking an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the delay in replacing the key. Considering the entire circumstances in this case we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for compensation for the delay in replacing the key and we are limiting the amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation. These points are found accordingly.
8. Point No.3
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
- Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.
- Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.1000/- as cost from the opposite parties.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 17th day of May, 2022.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Sd/-Smt.P.RSholy (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Vinayan M (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of mail sent to M/s.Honda Cars India Ltd
Ext.A2 - Copy of mail received from 1st respondent
Ext.A3 - Copy of mail received from 2nd respondent
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:-Br/-
Compared by:-
