Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/127/2019

S. Navarathanmal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Abhiram Motors, And 4 others. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Prakash Adiapadam

04 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 127 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.30/2017 dated 25.02.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram.

 

Friday, the 4^th day of February 2022

 

S. Navarathanmal

No.2, 7^th Cross,  Mandapam Street

Madurantakam,

Kanchipuram District.                                             .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

 

1.  M/s. Abhiram Motors

     Outlet of M/s.Abhiram Honda

     Honda Exclusive Authorised Dealer

     Rep. by its Managing Partner

     Mr. Sridhar Reddy Peduri

     Acharapakkam GST Road

     Near Dr.Ambedkar Statue

     Variyar Street,Madurantakam Town

     Tamil Nadu – 603 306.

 

2.  M/s. Abhiram Honda

     Honda Exclusive Authorised Dealer

     Rep. by its Managing Partner

     Mr. Sridhar Reddy Peduri

     Door No. 86, GST Road

     Near Maruva Mahal

     Pulipakkam, Chengalpattu,

     Tamil Nadu – 603 002.

 

 

 

3.   Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt.Ltd.,

     Registered Head Office

     Rep. by its General Manager

     Commercial Complex II, Sector 49-50

     Golf Course Extension Road

     Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 018.

 

4.  Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt.Ltd.,

     South Regional Office

     Rep. by its Regional Manager

     Unit- 01, 1^st Floor, West Wing

     Golden Heights

     59^th C-Cross Street, 4^th M Block

     Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore

     Karnataka – 560 010.

 

5.  Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

     Chennai Zonal Office

     Rep. by its Zonal Manager

     3^rd & 4^th Floor, No.10

     GJ Complex, First Main Road

     C.I.T. Nagar, Chennai.

     Tamil Nadu –600 035.                             .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

 

   

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant                  : M/s. Prakash Adiapadam

    Counsel for the Respondents /Opposite Parties : M/s. C.Munusamy

                                                                            

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 24.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

 

O R D E R

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2019 made in C.C. No.30 of 2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

 

2.   The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that the opposite parties 3 to 5, are the registered Head Office, South Regional Office and Chennai Zonal Office of M/s.Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt.Ltd., respectively, which is an automobile manufacturing company.  On seeing the advertisements made by them on Television and Newspapers, the appellant/ complainant intend to purchase a two wheeler manufactured by them.  Accordingly, the appellant/ complainant purchased a two wheeler from the first respondent/ 1^st opposite party, who is the authorised dealer of Respondents 3 to 5.  The First Opposite Party is the outlet of the Second Opposite Party, which is directly run and managed by the first opposite party.  The complainant purchased a “HONDA ACTIVA 3G”, Red colour on 01.03.2016 bearing Registration No. TN 19 T 1615 for a sum of Rs.64,115/-.  From day one of its purchase, the complainant had frequent complaint about automatic immediate acceleration of the vehicle on its own, immediately on pressing the ignite/ starter button of the vehicle.   The complainant had complained about the same to the first opposite party, for which the first opposite party had told that since it is a new vehicle such a complaint is a common one and it would get resolved after more on-road usage of the vehicle in future.  Whileso, on 04.02.2017, the same problem again re-occurred.  Hence, the complainant handed over the vehicle on 04.02.2017 to the first opposite party to rectify the said complaint. The vehicle was returned to the complainant on the same day itself on the assurance that such problem would not re-occur at any cost in future.  Again, when the complainant started the vehicle on 06.02.2017 at around 04.30 p.m., immediately upon pressing the ignition button the vehicle automatically accelerated itself and resulted in major accident that caused severe injuries on the complainant’s left leg, right hand and other parts of the body and it disabled the complainant from attending managerial job in his shop for almost 17 days.   Immediately the complainant was admitted in the hospital and all the details of his treatment have been recorded in the form of hospital records.  The Complainant also intimated about the accident to the second opposite party on 06.02.2017 itself.  The second opposite party instructed the first opposite party to take the vehicle from the accident spot.  Immediately, the first opposite party sent two representatives to the accident spot, who directly saw the injuries and the disability caused to the complainant.  The complainant had also filed a police complaint on 07.02.2017 before Maduranthagam Police Station against the first opposite party for breach of trust and also for action against all the opposite parties.  On 11.02.2017 and 15.02.2017, two of the representatives of the first opposite party again came to the complainant’s house.  Since the complainant was taking treatment in the Hospital, again they came on 22.02.2017 and enquired about the accident with the complainant’s brother.  The complainant’s brother immediately contacted the complainant and informed him about the enquiry.  The complainant decided not to take back the faulty vehicle and wanted the opposite parties to replace the vehicle.  In this regard, the complainant had sent a letter on 09.02.2017, for which there was no response.  The complainant sent a legal notice on 30.03.2017 as a last attempt to enable the opposite parties to understand the seriousness of the deficiency in service by the opposite parties.  But, no reply has been sent by the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint.\

1. to replace the complainant’s vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 19 T 1615, with a new vehicle;
2. to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards money spent by the complainant towards medical expenses for the complainant’s injuries;
3. to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.8500/- as loss of income at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for 17 days, when the complainant was unable to attend to his job; and
4. to pay another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony caused by the continuous repair of the vehicle and also due to the loss of job which has happened due to the aforesaid accident.

 

3.  Resisting the complaint filed by the complainant, the opposite parties filed written version stating that the Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., is one of the reputed automobile industries in India.   The ACTIVA Scooter is very popular and a trouble free vehicle.  The allegation made by the complainant that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are unable to handle the manufacturing defect is denied.  It is no doubt true that the complainant has purchased Honda ACTIVA 3G Red colour on 01.03.2016 bearing Registration No. TN 19 T 1615.  The cost of the vehicle is Rs.64,150/- including registration, insurance, accessories etc.  In fact, no complaint has been raised by the complainant at any point of time during the four free service periods.  The complainant handed over the vehicle on the following days for free service.:

S.No.           Date                      Job Card No.                   Kms.

1)       04.04.2016                      3380                               246

2)       07.07.2016                      3918                               902

3)       29.11.2016                      4921                               2286

4)       04.02.2017                      5907                               3258

During the first service, the complainant had complained about the vibration in handle bar, which has been rectified to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant.  The other services are general service and oil change.  Hence, automatic acceleration of the vehicle, immediately on pressing the ignite or starter button is an invented story.  It is no doubt that on 04.02.2017 the complainant has handed over the vehicle for last free service.  At the time of service, the complainant has given instruction to do general service.  This service was also done to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant.  The allegation that on 04.02.2017 at about 04.30 p.m., when he pressed the ignition button of the vehicle, it automatically accelerated which resulted in a major accident, is denied.  Even assuming but not admitting that the complainant suffered some injuries on account of use or misuse of the vehicle in question, the opposite parties are in no way responsible for the same.  The complainant was using the vehicle for a period of one year without any complaint or whatsoever.  The complainant has brought the vehicle four times for free service.  During such time, the complainant had not complained about the automatic acceleration of the vehicle.  The complainant has projected the case before this Forum as if there is a manufacturing defect.  It is nothing but mere abuse of law.  The first opposite party on humanitarian ground took the vehicle for repair.  After repair it was duly informed to the complainant, but the vehicle was not taken back.  On 11.02.2017 and 15.02.2017, representatives of the first opposite party went to the house of the complainant and informed that the vehicle is ready after repair and to take the vehicle from the service centre.  The first opposite party charged Rs.8,826/- as repairing charges.  But, the complainant’s brother told that they will not pay any cash for repair.  The attitude of the complainant would show that he is interested only in getting new vehicle or money.   In fact the opposite party had suitably replied to the letter of the complainant on 27.03.2017, stating that the vehicle is ready for delivery and requested the complainant to take the vehicle at his convenience, or the opposite party is ready to drop the vehicle at his residence.  But, there is no reply by the complainant.  There is absolutely no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.    In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and 39 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A39.  On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavit 10 documents were filed as Ex.B1 to Ex.B10.

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the evidence and entire records, has come to the conclusion that the complainant has not filed any expert opinion to prove that the vehicle has some manufacturing defect.  Therefore, he is not entitled for replacement of new vehicle.  At the same time, it is proved that there are some problems in the acceleration and the same would have caused mental stress to the complainant and directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony due to the deficiency of service on the part of the first respondent and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-for litigation expenses.  Not being satisfied with the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

 

6.  Heard the arguments and perused the material available on records.

 

7.   The counsel for the appellant submitted that when the District Forum has come to the conclusion that the vehicle had problem in acceleration, the opposite parties ought to have been directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony of the complainant or replace with a new vehicle.  Instead of doing so, the District Forum has awarded only a meager sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation.  Counsel for the appellant also invited the attention of this Court to Ex.B10 of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, wherein, under the column “Action Taken” it contains the following entry. “Fork Assembly, Acceleratory Cable set and parts replaced in warranty.  Trial taken and found OK.  Invited customer to collect but customer not”.  This entry found in Ex.B10 would show that there is deficiency of service by the respondents/ opposite parties.  The statement “trial taken and found OK” goes to show that the vehicle was not OK till the fork assembly, acceleratory cable set and parts were replaced.  In fact, the vehicle is under the custody of the opposite parties 1 to 3, from 07.02.2017till date.  The Opposite parties 1 to 3 had already tweaked the vehicle sufficiently to suit their needs and in their favour on 07.02.2017, which is evidenced from Ex.B10.  Therefore, counsel for the appellant requested to set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the opposite parties to replace with a new vehicle or to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

 

8.  Countering the same, counsel for the respondents made their submissions supporting the order passed by the District Forum.

 

9.  It is the main submission of the counsel for the appellant that right from day one of its purchase, the vehicle had acceleration problem i.e., whenever he presses the ignition button, the vehicle automatically accelerates itself.  On 06.02.2017, on account of the same problem the complainant underwent a major accident.  But it is the case of the opposite parties, after purchasing the vehicle the complainant had used the vehicle for more than one year, then he left the vehicle for free service four times and in none of the occasion he complained about the problem he faced with the vehicle.  However, the opposite party has rectified the defects pointed out by the complainant.  The vehicle is still with them.  The complainant has not come forward to take the vehicle. 

 

10.  In our considered opinion, as observed by the District Forum, when the complainant has stated that there is manufacturing defect he ought to have examined an expert.  But he has miserably failed to do so.  Only if there is any expert opinion that will help the Commission to come to a conclusion, as to whether there is a manufacturing defect or not. However, we find from the version that there is a problem in acceleration.  For this problem, the Commission cannot direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one.  Moreover, as contended by the counsel for the opposite parties, the complainant had used the vehicle for a period of more than one year from the date of purchase and handed over the vehicle to the first opposite party for four free services.  There is no document to show that the complainant has made a complaint about the defect in the two wheeler to the opposite parties during the time of handing over the vehicle for free services.  When there is no clear cut evidence to show that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect simply by accepting the pleadings, this Court cannot give a direction to replace the vehicle with a new one, that too after a lapse of five years, unless it is proved that there is a manufacturing defect through an expert.   In fact, the District Forum has come to a correct conclusion that there was a problem only in acceleration and so awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation.  However, considering the facts, that the victim would have undergone severe stress due to the problem found in the vehicle, a sum of Rs.5000/- could be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- which would suffice to meet the interest of justice.  Therefore, by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-, the order of the District Forum is confirmed.  Accordingly, this appeal is allowed partly.

 

11.  In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-.  Except this enhancement, the order dated 25.02.2019 passed in C.C. No.30 of 2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram is confirmed in all other aspects.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed.

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2022