DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 14/10/2016

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 573/2016

COMPLAINANT

George Varghese, S/o. Marachery Varkey Varghese, Chelattu House, Garden Villas, Mount Carmel Convent Road, Thaikkattukara P.O.,  Aluva 683106.

(Rep. Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha 686661)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd., Rep. by Mr. Yoichiro Ueno, the President & CEO, Plot No. A1, Sector 40/41, Sarjapur-Kesna Road, Greater Noida Indistrial Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201306.

(Rep. by Adv. Santhosh Mathew & Alphin antony, Ninan & Mathew, 2^nd Floor, 42/1686, D20, Empire Building, High Court East End, Kochi 18)

2. M/s. Peninsular Honda, Rep. by its Managing Director, Patel Cars (P) Ltd., NH 47, Bypass Road, Maradu, Kochi 682304.

(Rep. by Adv. Jolly John, Palathinkal, chathamma, Panangad P.O., Ernakulam)

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

The complainant is a graduate Engineer who has purchased a Honda City Car on 12/02/2016 from the 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer of 1^st opposite party. to brief the into its essence is as follows: Immediately after purchase of the car by the complainant on payment of advance amount of Rs.51,000/- as booking charges on 11/01/2016 and on subsequent payment of Rs.7,12,694/- by way of Bank payment the vehicle with Engine No. L15Z12246465 and Chassis No.MAKGM653AG4106129 was delivered to the complainant. Soon on purchase and taking delivery of the car the complainant noticed that the picture/video of the car published in the official website of the opposite party as well as the car given to him for the test drive has two interior ceiling lights, one at the front and another at the rear from the roof. But the car delivered to him was not have light at the front end. At the time when the complainant was driving the car to his home experienced several difficulties for counting money for toll, fuel filling, reading toll ticket etc. The complainant immediately on 13/02/2016 and on 15/02/2016 approached the opposite party and informed that besides above described fact that the Bluetooth hands free telephone control on steering wheel facility suffered serious defects. The nature of the complaint is that the voice of talk from the car is always feeble and was breaking frequently. The Service Manager of the 2^nd opposite party revealed to the complainant that all these are inherent design faults of all the “SV” variant of Honda City cars. However the 2^nd opposite party had replaced the above but there was no change and the successive Bluetooth system changed for 5 times did not resolve the defects. Aggrieved by the above the complainant approached the Commission seeking for getting relief by issuing direction to the opposite party to replace the V variant car with a new car along with other reliefs.

Upon notice from the Commission opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and 2^nd opposite party filed their version in time.

The opposite parties in their version contented that they only a dealer of the 1^st opposite party and what is alleged by the complainant as defect is associated with 1^st opposite party and hence they do not have any responsibility and further stated as follows: 2^nd opposite party has never made any representation regarding any facility that are not available in the vehicle. The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant is well aware of the fact that he had taken test drive on V variant, a higher variant can than he purchased. It is impliedly admitted by the complainant that he was aware of which variant he is driving: which variant he is interested to purchase and what are the differences between each variant. The contention that the pictures/videos of the car published in the official website of the 1^st opposite party had two interior ceiling lights is false and hence denied. The complainant himself had admitted that the complainant was given V variant of the Honda City car for test drive and had booked the SV variant of Honda City car and all the features as specified in the official website and the grade selection chart was provided in the vehicle. The complainant can’t make complaint against 2^nd opposite party as the option of choosing a car with higher facility has always with him. 2^nd opposite party had extended all the assistance to the complainant to make changes in the vehicle as he suggested and was not in a position to change the inbuilt system of the variant manufactured by the manufacturer. It is for that purpose, the manufacturer offers different variants with different inbuilt design. The booking of the vehicle entirely depends upon the requirement and decision of the customer. After receiving the booked vehicle the customer will have other opportunity to further scrutinize and verify the car. It was with the confirmation of the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party sent the vehicle for registration. It is submitted that if the complainant was more specific about some facility it was his duty to select the car suitable to him. Complainant is well aware of the variants, models and their specifications and features, so it was his obligation to opt the one with the facilities required by him or to disclose his concerns to the persons demonstrating the car to him. Hence 2^nd opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

The complainant had produced 6 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A6. 2^nd opposite party had produced 6 documents which are marked as Exbt. B1 to B6. An Expert Commissioner was appointed in this case to inspect the car and Expert Commissioner submitted his report which is objected by 2^nd opposite party.

Exbt. A1 is the copy of catalogue, Exbt. A2 is manual of the vehicle, Exbt. A3 is specification of the vehicle, Exbt. A4 is photograph of interior of car, Exbt. A5 is the copy of price schedule. Exbt. A6 is the copy of photograph. Exbt. B1 is copy of letter, Exbt. B2  is original brochure, Exbt. B3 is copy of Sale Contract, Exbt. B4 is customer self-declaration in original, Exbt. B5 is Original Retail invoice dated 11/02/2016 and Exbt. B6 is copy of Customer Final Settlement Ledger.

From the above documents and also from the facts and figures submitted by both sides the Commission has to verify the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

On going through the complaint, version and evidence produced by either sides it can be seen that the complainant purchased the vehicle Honda City V Variant Petrol car from the opposite party and there were some defect or deficiencies detected by the complainant. As there is no interior lamp in the front end and Bluetooth hand free telephone control on steering wheel facility has not working properly. Complainant has selected the car after a test drive and upon convincing and satisfied himself about the car. The complainant is a graduate engineer in Mechanical Engineering.

Expert commissioner appointed by this Commission has filed his report stating that “The Bluetooth Hands Free Telephone Control on Steering Wheel System of the car of the complainant (Bearing Regn. No. KL/41/K/7686) is not working properly and it suffers serious defects and is not at all serving its purpose. The following inherent design and manufacturing defects/deficiency for the Bluetooth hands free telephone control system:

1. Even when the car is at standstill condition and driver is in normal driving posture, his voice of talk is extremely feeble to the person, who is in the other end of telephone conversation.
2. Even when the car is at standstill condition, despite the driver talks loudly and advances very close to the microphone that placed at dashboard, it is noticed that his talk is only little audible to the person at the other end.
3. While the driver is in normal driving posture with the A/c in “Auto” mode, practically his voice of the talk is not audible to the person who is at the other end of the telephone conversation. He can hear only a totally unclear and broken feeble voice of the driver with unpleasant heavy noise of air blow.

In the above circumstance and also taking into consideration of intentional absence of 1^st opposite party after appearing before the Commission and by non-filing of version it is clear that the 1^st opposite party is consciously aware that the allegation raised by the complainant is true and the following order is passed.

1. Considering the age of the vehicle the prayer in the complaint is not allowed and the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainant for the deficiencies, defect and drawbacks pointed out and proved by the complainant in the car for which the 1^st opposite party is responsible.
2. 1^st opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation.
3. 1^st opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of proceedings.

The 1^st opposite party shall to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12^th day of March, 2024

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of catalogue

Exbt. A2:    Copy of manual of the vehicle

Exbt. A3:    Copy of specification of the vehicle

Exbt. A4:    Copy of photograph of interior of car

Exbt. A5:    Copy of Price list issued by the opposite party

Exbt. A6:    Copy of photograph of interior of car

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Exbt. B1:    Copy of letter

Exbt. B2:    Original brochure

Exbt. B3:    Copy of Sales Contract

Exbt. B4:    Customer self-declaration

Exbt. B5:    Original retail invoice

Exbt. B6:    Copy of Customer Final Settlement Ledger.

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 573/2016

Order Date: 12/03/2024