DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR

Complaint No.276 of 2017 Date of Instt. 09.08.2017 Date of Decision: 01.06.2021

Samvinder Singh Haier, age 37 years, s/o S. Sewak Singh R/o Power Colony, 132 KV Sub-Station Beas, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Prestige Honda Lally Motors Pvt. Limited, Village Paragpur, G.T Road, Jalandhar City, through its Authorized Representative.

2. M/s Honda Car India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201306.

3. M/s Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Pvt. Limited, Amritsar, through its Authorized representative.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SMT. JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For Complainant : Sh. B. S. Lucky, Advocate

For OP No.1 & 3 : Sh.Umesh Dhingra, Advocate

For OP No.2 : Sh. M. K. Jain, Advocate

ORDER:-

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that the complainant had purchased one Honda City DE Car having Chassis No. MAKGM858EF4102481 Engine No.NI5A12411033 vide Invoice No 211 dated 17.06.2015 from OP no.1 which is authorized dealer as well as service provider of OP no.2. The said car has been to him through OP no.1 by OP no.2 and warranty, guarantee of the car have been given and extended to him by OP no.1. The complainant had paid lump-sum amount of Rs.1133890/- out of which Rs.8,84,427/- has been received as the price of the said car. Rs.1,14,996/- have been charged as VAT @13% and Rs.11498/- have been charged as surcharge vide invoice no.211 dated 17.06.2015. The said car also covered under the standard warranty of 24 months as well as with further extended warranty of four years or 80000 Km whichever is earlier. After purchase of the car the manufacturing defects like low blue tooth microphone sensitivity, low AC cooling had arisen in said car, which were brought into the notice of OP no.1 by complainant at the time of first service of the said car on 03.07.2015 but nothing was done to resolve and remove the defects by OPs. Soon after that two more problems i.e. abnormal noise from front left side dashboard and increase in engine noise being heard in side of said car, which were brought into the notice of OP’s authorized dealer-cum-service provider at Amritsar on 07.08.2017 but complainant was told that these problems as well as each and every manufacturing defects shall be resolved and removed at the time of company’s next service and nothing was done by OP’s authorized dealer-cum-service provider at Amritsar. The manufacturing defects were reported to OP’s authorized dealer-cum-service provider at Amritsar. The third service done on 03.12.2015 but this time also nothing except checking wheel alignment and service job, changing oil, engine oil and filter was done by OP’s authorized dealer. On 06.12.2015 he noticed that outer tread of both front tyres were worn out abnormally. On 17.12.2015, it was established that excessive wear and tear of the tyres is due to faulty wheel alignment as was done by OP’ authorized dealer cum service provide at Amritsar on 10.120.2015. Due to above said reasons, he had to visit OP’s authorized dealer on 18.12.2015 where manufacturer MRF’s representative Mr. Vikas was called, the tyres were got replaced subject to payment. Within a gap of five months both new front tyres had abnormally worn out which clear that manufacturing defect in the main body of the said car. On 31.05.2016 he narrated the above unresolved manufacturing defect but OPs failed to do anything. The complainant has made full payment without any discount for a defect free car. When the said car has narrated manufacturing defect, the said car must be replaced with a defect free new car in order to compensate him. Due to act and conduct of OPs, he had filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to replace of a new defect free car of same model fitted with AVN type of Alpine make system, besides to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for metal harassment and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.

2. Upon notice, OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by averring that the warranty policy on the subject car as provided by OP no.2 does not cover damages on their car which has been negligently used and handled with improper care and caution. The complainant has alleged certain defects which allegedly arose in the Bluetooth microphone and the air conditioning of the subject car. The complainant has alleged that there was allegedly some abnormal noise heard in the left hand side dashboard area and high engine noise from the same side. The said issues were allegedly reported by the complainant to OP no.1 on 03.07.2015, 21,08.2015, 10.10.2105 and also on 03.12.2015. The satisfaction of the complainant in regards the repair and replacement of defective parts of the subject car was further evident from the job card dated 07.11.2015, where complainant duly checked and compared the car with a demo car and was fully satisfied with all its parameters and repair and replacement work carried out on the same. The owner’s manual in clear terms provides that the OP no.2 does warrant the tyres of the car its manufactures and warranty is provided by the respective tyre manufacturing company. All the cars manufacture by the OP no.2 undergo strict pre-delivery inspection and quality checks. The complainant has not suffered any damage on account of OP no.2 and hence he is not entitled for any compensation as prayed. The complainant is not a structural or automotive expert who can judge whether or not the proper material quality was used in the subject car. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. OPs No.1 and 3 appeared and filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer of OPs. The there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complaint is time barred and has not been filed within limitation of period. On merits, it was averred that the car sold by the authorized dealer is covered under the warranty for a period upto two years or mileage of 40,000 Kms whichever comes first. The authorized dealer of Honda make the warranties given but guarantee is always the choice of the purchaser to have or not. After the sale of the vehicle when sale is entered into the system of the parent company, the warranty starts which has started in the case of the complainant from 18.06.2015 when complete documents including invoice have been issued by the system of computer. The standard warranty has already submitted for a period of 24 months or the mileage i.e. use of vehicle up to 40,000 Kms whichever comes earlier. The extended warrant for a period of four years or mileage of 80,000 Kms whichever is earlier is always choice of the purchaser. It was denied that after purchase of the car the manufacturing defects like low blue tooth microphone sensitivity, low AC cooling had arisen in the said car or which were brought to the notice of OP no1 by complainant as alleged. The complainant never visited the OPs on 07.08.2017. The complainant approached OPs for second service on 21.08.2015 at Amritsar having mileage of the said car at 3016. As per terms and conditions of the service manual, the second free service of the car was required from the sale of the vehicle or start of the warranty. At the said time the complainant for the first time conveyed about the noise coming in the left front side of the car as such through inspection was made by the engineer of OPs and in order to check the noise the left side absorber unit of front side shocker has been replaced free of costs to the said car. Thereafter, the complainant again visited OP on 10.10.2015 when the mileage of the vehicle has completed and was 5025 Kms. The vehicle was check up for the general repair and damper kit which was recommended and was done vide replacement of shock absorber done on 22.08.2015 as such the wheel alignment job of the vehicle was done on the said date. The said car had mileage of 7508 Kms and third free service was provided to the car and no defect was pointed out or complained by the complainant during the third service of the vehicle. The complete service have been provided as per the practice of the authorized dealer which is goodwill of the company of Honda Car and no defect ever remained left by the expert mechanical staff. The tyres were replaced free of costs totally. There was no defect in the manufacturing defect in the car. Rest of the averments was denied by OPs no.2 and 3 and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23. On the other hand, OP no. 2 tendered in evidence s tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-2/A and Ex.OP-2/B along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/7. OPs no.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 & 3A and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by OP No.2 and OPs No.1 & 3, very minutely.

6. The glance of evidence is required for settlement of the present case. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-A in support of his case. He alleged that OPs no.1 and 2 jointly liable to fulfill the promises, assurance and warranties given by them at the time of sale of the car in question. Ex.C-1 is copy of invoice dated 17.06.2015. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 are copies of receipts of different dates. Ex.C-5 is copy of car history. Ex.C-6 is copy of low body repair report. Ex.C-7 is copy of lower body diagnose report. Ex.C-8 is copy of warranty terms and conditions. Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13 are copies of invoices. Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-18 are copies of manual service repair report of different dates. Ex.C-20 is copy of re-estimate dated 16.08.2017. Similarly, we have also examined other documents Ex.C-21 to Ex.C-23 on the record.

7. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP no.2 relied upon affidavit of M.K Bipin Manager Legal as Ex.OP-2/A on the record. This witness denied any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OP no.2. Ex.OP-2/B is affidavit of MK Bipin working as Manager Legal on the record. Ex.OP-2/1 is copy of letter of authority to represent the company. Ex.OP-2/2 is copy of notice. Ex.OP-2/3 to Ex.OP-2/4 are copies of invoices. Ex.OP-2/5 is warrant card. Ex.OP-2/6 is copy of agreement and invoice Ex.OP-2/7. On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 3 relied upon affidavit of Harpal Singh DSM Lally Motors as Ex.OP1&3/A on the record.

8. This fact is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question i.e. Honda City DE on 17.06.2015 from OP no.1, which is authorized dealer as well as service provider of OP no.2. Warranty, guarantee etc. of the said car given and extended to complainant by OP No.1. After purchase of the car manufacturing defect like low blue tooth microphone sensitivity, low AC cooling had arisen in the car in question by complainant at the time of first service of the said car on 03.07.2015, but nothing has done to resolve the defects by OPs. On 07.08.2015, the authorized dealer cum service provide Amritsar visit and assured that these problems as well as each and every manufacturing defects shall be resolved and removed at the time of company’s next service but nothing was done by OPs. Again on 10.10.2015 the complainant went to OPs authorized dealer but this time only wheel alignment was done and remaining problems were left unresolved by OPs authorized dealer. On 3.12.2015 the third service was done and this time nothing except checking wheel alignment and service jobs viz changing oil, engine oil and filter was done by OPs authorized dealer cum service provider at Amritsar. On 06.12.2015, the complainant noticed that outer tread of both front tyres were worn out abnormally, which along with unresolved manufacturing defects was immediately brought into the notice of OPs authorized dealer. On 18.12.2015, MRFs representative Mr. Vikas was called, the tyres were got replaced , subject to payment to be made by complainant and loss was to be adjusted by way of service coupon of Rs.2200/- to be adjusted henceforth by OPs authorized dealer cum service provider. On 31.05.2016 complainant went to OP no.1 and narrated the above unresolved manufacturing defect/faults but of no use. The complainant alleged that he visited OPs many times for resolving his grievances but OPs failed to do so anything.

9. On the other hand, OPs refuted the allegations of the complainant and it is correct that except for the warranty of the vehicle sold by the authorized dealer of Honda make the warranties given but guarantee is always the choice of the purchaser to have or not. OPs denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

10. A manufacturing defect occurs during the construction phase of products. For example, an airbag that lacks the proper mechanism to deploy probably has a manufacturing defect. Similarly, a bottle of cough syrup that is contaminated probably has a manufacturing defect. Any manufacturing defect that causes an injury can give rise to a product liability lawsuit. Generally, manufacturing and quality assurance controls limit the number of defective products that are shipped to consumers. However, occasionally a badly manufactured product bypasses the systems that are in place to make sure that it is not defective. The two most common defects involve low-quality materials and poor workmanship while assembling components to make the finished product. Often, the manufacturing defect could be eliminated if a more careful worker or better-quality materials were used to create the product. If an injury-producing problem would still be there, whether or not the product was put together well, the issue is probably a design defect rather than a manufacturing defect. When a badly manufactured product leaves the manufacturer and causes injury when used for its intended purpose, the manufacturer is liable for any injuries that result under the principle of strict liability. Liability arises even if the manufacturer was very reasonable and careful when putting together the product. A plaintiff trying to prove strict liability need only show that the product was defective and that the defect caused his or her injuries.

11. In the present case in hand, there are plethora of judgments to settle the controversy is dispute. Hon’ble Supreme Court settled this dispute in case titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Susheel Kumar Gabotra and another reported in AIR 2006 SC 1586, wherein it has been categorically held that obligation of manufacturer of the vehicle under warranty is limited only to the extent of repair or replacement of any part found to be defective. It has been also clearly held by Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Dr. Hem VasantialDakoria vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd and other reported in II(2003) CPJ 102 NC that when a part or component could be replaced and defect could be rectified. Replacement of vehicle cannot be ordered. The warranty condition clearly refers to the replacement of the part only, if it is found to be defective and not of the car. Hon’ble National Commission further held in case titled as J Malhotra Vs. MarutiUydog Limited reported in Volume 3 2002 CPJ 97 that vehicle cannot be permitted to be replaced with a new vehicle.

12. From perusal of entire record, it has been established that whenever problem occurred in the vehicle in question the problem has been resolved by OPs time to time. A bare perusal of job card dated 22.08.2015 issued by OP No.1 it is clear that left absorber unit and front shocker of the subject car were duly replaced under warranty with no charge to the complainant, therefore, obligation of OPs in as much as replacement of the part found to be defective was duly completed. Considering from above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of above judgments , it is crystal clear that as per warranty conditions, the OPs are only liable to replace the defective parts of the vehicle in question and not replace the vehicle with new one.

13. From totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs No.1 and 2 are liable to remove the defects occurs in the vehicle in question during warranty period and not liable to replace the vehicle with new one. As such, we partly accepted the complaint of the complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to replace the defective parts of the vehicle in question within 45 days from receipt of copy of the order to entire satisfaction of the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment including cost of litigation to the complainant.

14. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

15. Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

16. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated time frame, due to heavy pendency of the court cases and spread of Covid-19.

17. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

1^st Day of June 2021

(Kuljit Singh)

President

(Jyotsna)

Member