IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of November, 2017
Filed on 13.01.2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.11/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.V.Govinda Pillai 1. M/s Palace Automobiles Pvt. Ltd
Thrikarthika Evoor South, Ramapuram
Erezha North Keerikkadu.P.O, Kayamkulam
Chettikulangara.P.O Alappuzha Represeted by its
Mavelikara, Alappuzha Manging Director
2. M/s Honda cars India Ltd
Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41
Surajpur – Kansa – Road
Greater Noida Industrial
Development Area,
District Gautan Budh Nagar
U.P., Pin – 201 306.
(Adv.Alphin Antony)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
Complainant had purchased a brand new Honda City car manufactured by the 2nd opposite party on 14/10/2015. The car at present had run a total km of 21,982km, and the warranty period of the said vehicle is 24 months or for 40,000km whichever is earlier from the date of sale to the first owner and now the said car is under warranty. While so the car was taken to the 1st opposite party for service on 15/10/2016. After inspecting the vehicle the 1st opposite party intimated the complainant that the front wheel disc of the car has some damages which can be temporarily rectified by polishing the wheel disk but later it had to be replaced. When enquired about the possible causes of the said damage, the 1st opposite party stated that it happens due to rubbing of brake shoe screws on wheel discs, since the brake pads where not replaced in time and for avoiding further damages brake shoes have to be replaced urgently and brake disks have to be polished. The mechanic opened the wheel disc in my presence and, it was found that brake shoes are intact, not sustained any appreciable wear and tear, brake pad screws remain intact and not rubbed the break disks. The dealer ship diagnostician opined that the brake shoes as intact and not to be replaced and he was put in a fix to explain the real cause of damages to the wheel discs. Since he could not explain himself the reason for damages he sought the help some of his colleagues and came out with strange contention that the damage might have been caused due to the trapping of foreign particles in between break disk and the pads. Since it is not the natural wear and tear. The complainant insists the 1st opposite party to replace the break disc free of cost but they denied. According to the complainant he pointed out that only damages due to natural wear and tear is exempted from warranty, and the company is liable to make free replacement of the brake disc since this is not a case of natural wear and tear, they stuck to their stand and polished the discs exhorting an amount of Rs. 1,035/- from me. Complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties they appear before the Forum and filed version.
3. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
Since the alleged issue is with regards to the warranty it is the duty of the 2nd opposite party to decide the case. The complaint has intimated about this to the 2nd opposite party through e-mail. The 2nd opposite party rejected the same as it was not a manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The main allegation of the complainant is that 1st opposite party refused to replace the front wheel disc of the car free of cost. The opposite party explained the complainant that the scratches on both the front wheel discs is due to trapping of foreign particles in between the brake disc and pad. The opposite party submits that damage has been caused due to external factors wear and tear etc., as classified and mentioned in the warranty manual and the same is not covered under warranty. Further the brake pad and disc is a part which impacted by the driving pattern and usage of person driving car and the same is not manufacturing defect. Since there is no manufacturing defect and so damage is not covered under warranty. So the complainant has to pay for the same. That it is submitted that the relationship shared between 2nd opposite party and 1st opposite party is on principal to principal basis. The ancillary services such as after sale service are exclusively provided by authorized dealers 1st opposite party and not by the 2nd opposite party. Each opposite party is liable for its own respective actions and none assumes liability for the actions of the other. It is only in the case of any manufacturing defect that 2nd opposite party is required to meet its obligations as per the terms of the warranty. Any grievance with respect to deficiency in service/ or unfair trade practice can only be made against 1st opposite party. It is humbly submitted that in the captioned matter impleading 2nd opposite party is uncalled for and baseless as there is no manufacturing defect in the car of the complainant. Complainant is not filed in expert report any support of his allegation no produce any other documents to prove that the car of the complainant has manufacturing defect. In the case the complainant is not alleged any negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed. That the contention of para11 of the complaint are denied for the want of knowledge as the same pertains to the dealings between the complainant and the opposite party 1 However the opposite party 2 most humbly would like to submit that brake pads are not covered under clause 5 of the warranty booklet. It is pertinent to note that he complainant is trying to mislead this Hon’ble Forum which is evident from the fact that the complainant is praying in the prayer clause of the complaint for replacement of both front wheel discs before this Hon’ble Forum however, in the para under reply the complainant is seeking for replacement of brake discs. The complainant himself is not clear as to what relief he is praying for before this Hon’ble forum and the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Since the damage has been caused due to external factors the same is not covered under warranty.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5. 1st Opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B6. An Expert commissioners report was marked an Ext.C1.
4. Considering the allegations of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
5. Issues 1 and 2:-
The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a brand new Honda city car on 14/5/2015. The warranty period of the said vehicle is for 2 years or for 40,000/- km whichever is earlier. According to the complainant the brake disc of the said vehicle became defective when the vehicle had run only 22000km. Even though scratches were found on both front brake disc the opposite parties had not replaced the brake disc but they polished the same after effecting payment. Since it is a brand new vehicle and was under warranty the complainant requested to replace the brake disc but the opposite party failed to do so. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. 1st opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents Ext.B1 to B6 were marked. The expert commissoner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. The case of the complainant is that the both the front brake disc of vehicle became defective when the vehicle had run hardly 22000 km. According to the complainant it is not a natural a wear and tear since the vehicle had run hardly 22000km. Therefore he is entitled to get it replaced under warranty. According to the opposite party the scratches of both front brake disc is due to trapping of foreign particles in between the break disc and pads and such parts are of wear and tear nature and according to the opposite party the natural wear and tear will not come under warranty. So they charged for polishing the wheel disc. In order to find whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the question come up for considerations is that whether the brake disc got damaged due to natural wear and tear or not and to answer this question. An expert was appointed by the Forum and his report was marked as Ext.C1. On verifying Ext.C1 expert report it can be seen that the damages caused to the brake disc is not a natural wear and tear. So the contention of the opposite party will not sustain. The complainant proved his case with supporting documents. Since the defect caused is not due to natural wear and tear and the vehicle is under warranty. The opposite parties are bound to replace it free of cost. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service and the complainant its entitled to get the brake disc replaced free of cost. So the complainant is to be allowed the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.
In the result the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to replace the both front brake disc of the complainants vehicle free of cost. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) towards cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - V. Govindapillai(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Tax Invoice dtd.09/4/2017
Ext.A2 - Copy of letter dtd.17/10/2016
Ext.A3 - Copy of Email dtd.07/11/2016
Ext.A4 - Copy of letter dtd 25/11/2016
Ext.A5 - Copy of reply notice dtd25/11/2016
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sree lal P.V (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Vehicle warranty details
Ext.B2 - E mail Letter dtd 7/11/2016
Ext.B3 - Warranty booklet.
Ext.B4 - Copy of Job sheet dtd.15.10.2016
Ext.B5 - Service details.
Ext.B6 - Dealership Agreement.
C1 - Expert report.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
