Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Jagjot Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  12 & 13 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased a Honda Activa from opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 11.12.2014 for Rs. 47,693/-. The complainant drove  the vehicle first time and realized that the vehicle was having some problem of alignment  that is why the vehicle was regularly turning on left side. The complainant immediately made a complaint to the delivery officer of the opposite party, who disclosed that the vehicle was completely new one and as such it could have been some trouble but after some time when the parts of the vehicle would start its proper functioning then this defect will automatically rectify. But the assurance given by the opposite party proved fruitless rather the vehicle started giving more troubles after few days from the date of delivery. The complainant time and again approached the opposite party and requested them to remove the defect , but to no avail. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 for the regular first service of the vehicle on 19.1.2015 and he made the same complaint with the officials of the opposite party, who assured that the defect will be removed . The technical  staff of the opposite party changed the FORK SUB ASSY FR (Chimta) on 25.2.2015 and invoice in this regard was issued by the opposite party. The manufacturing problem of the vehicle remained same even after the change of FORK SUB ASSY FR (Chimta). The complainant again approached the opposite party on 27.2.2015 where CR Manager of opposite party personally directed service advisor Mr. Kirpal Singh to check the defect of the vehicle. But the said service advisor could not remove the defect of the vehicle . The complainant finding no other alternative moved a complaint to Honda Customer Care vide Ticket No. Q244900.  The defect of the vehicle was never  rectified  by the officers of the company but the complainant received a message on 3.3.2015 wherein it was specified that the defect has been resolved. The complainant immediately again made a complaint to the Customer care which was registered Q246063. The complainant time & again requested both the opposite parties to replace the vehicle  as the same is having manufacturing defect , but to no avail . Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite parties be directed to provide brand new vehicle to the complainant.

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 25000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that two wheelers manufactured by opposite party No.1 are  world class two wheelers and are being manufactured with 100% technological support from Honda Motor Co.Ltd.Japan/ Thus the products of opposite party No.1 are of world class quality with a very effective and efficient after sales service backup spread throughout the country   . Complainant approached opposite party No.2 for first time on 19.1.2014 whereas as per service schedule the complainant ought to have given the vehicle within 15-30 days. As per owner’s manual, warranty conditions are not applicable in cases where timely services have not been carried out as per service manual . The complainant has raised frivolous issues which are unwarranted and not maintainable.

3.       Opposite party No.2 in its written version has admitted that complainant purchased Honda Activa vehicle from the replying opposite party. It was submitted that before selling the vehicle to the customers, vehicle is to be checked by its technicians in each and every aspect and after passing the test, same has been sold out to the customers. In the present case also , vehicle was handed over to the complainant after checking the same in good running condition. No such complaint was ever reported by the complainant when the same was brought to the service centre of the replying opposite party. The complainant had not visited the replying opposite party after purchase of vehicle except when the vehicle was brought for service  and after due surveillance , vehicle was got repaired and delivery of same was handed over to the complainant in perfect running condition.  It was admitted that complainant had brought his vehicle  for the first time to the service centre of the replying opposite party on 19.1.2015 but no such complaint was ever reported by the complainant to the opposite party No.2. When the service work was completed, vehicle was duly handed over to the complainant after proper satisfaction of the complainant. It was submitted that complainant had brought his vehicle on 24.2.2015 to the service centre of the opposite party No.2 and due to adamant behaviour and  regular requests of the complainant, opposite party No.2 has changed the  Fork Sub Assy free of cost to the vehicle of the complainant  and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. As there is no defect in the vehicle of the complainant  but it is the complainant who is continuously pressuring  the opposite parties to replace the vehicle. While denying and controverting other allegations, prayer for  dismissal of complaint was made.

4.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence.

5.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Mohan Arora,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Trimeet  Inder Singh, Prop. M/s/ Arneja Auto Ex.OP2/1, affidavit  of  Sh.Sukhdev Sharma Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/14 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

7.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that  complainant purchased Honda Activa from opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 11.12.2014 for a sum of Rs. 47,693/-. The complainant submitted that when her drove the vehicle first time he realized that the vehicle was having some problem of alignment and he immediately made a complaint to the delivery officer, who told that the defect would be rectified automatically with the proper functioning of the vehicle. But the said assurance of the officials of the opposite party proved fruitless as the vehicle started giving more troubles after few days. The complainant time and again approached the opposite party and requested them to remove the defect but to no avail.  The complainant has alleged that he approached the opposite party No.2 for the regular first service of the vehicle on 19.1.2015 and again made the same complaint with the officials of the opposite party, who again assured that they will remove the defect. The technical staff of the opposite party changed Fork Sub Assy FR (Chimta) on 25.2.2015 and in this regard issued invoice. But the manufacturing problem of the vehicle remained the same even after the change of Form Sub Assy FR (Chimta). The complainant again approached  the opposite party on 27.2.2015 where CR  Manager of the opposite party directed Mr. Kirpal Singh to check the defect of the vehicle. But said Kirpal Singh could not remove the defect of the vehicle. Thereafter complainant moved a complaint to Honda  Customer Care  Vide Ticket No. Q244900 as well as Q246063  but the defect could not be removed. The complainant also requested the opposite parties  to replace the vehicle as the same is having manufacturing defects which have been creating troubles for the complainant, but the opposite parties did not accede to the genuine requests of the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.

8.       Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that the vehicle of the complainant  is in perfect running condition but the complainant is adamant to replace the vehicle with new one. It was submitted that after purchase of vehicle, for the first time, vehicle came for first free service on 19.1.2015, but no complaint was ever reported to the replying opposite party at that time. It was on 24.2.2015 when the vehicle was brought to service centre of opposite party No.2 and at that time, problem was reported by the complainant about alignment of the tyres of vehicle but there found no such major problem  and vehicle of the complainant was ready to deliver after repair. But however, the customer was not satisfied and as such for the satisfaction of the customer Fork Sub Assy was replaced and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant  to the satisfaction of the complainant. But complainant started lodging same problem again and again  and since vehicle was in warranty, as such, every time vehicle of the complainant was checked free of cost but no such defect as alleged in the present complaint has been found by the technicians of opposite party No.2. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that under these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.

9.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased vehicle Honda Activa from opposite party No.2 manufactured by opposite party No.1, vide invoice dated  11.12.2014 for a sum of Rs. 47,693/-. The complainant submitted that he noticed problem of alignment in the vehicle in question, so he brought the matter to the notice of opposite party No.2 on various occasions for removing the defect from the vehicle.  However the opposite party has changed  Fork Sub Assy FR (Chimta) on 25.2.2015 but even after replacement of Chimta the manufacturing problem of the vehicle remained the same. Complainant again on 27.2.2015 approached the opposite party, where CR Manager directed the service advisor to check the defect. In this regard complainant has placed on record copy of gate pass Ex.C-4 showing that the vehicle was brought to service Advisor Kirpal Singh as per direction of CR Manager of opposite party for repair, but nothing has been done by the officers of the opposite party. However, finding  no other alternative, complainant moved complaints to Honda Customer Care Vide Ticket No. Q244900 and Q246063  but the defect in the vehicle was never rectified . The complainant also produced on record report of Er. J.S. Malhotra dated 18.8.2015 Ex.C-12 which was proved by J.S.Malhotra through his affidavit Ex.C-13 in which he stated that the vehicle is dragging on one left while driving. The opposite party has not placed on record any counter evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant. The Activa Honda  was within the warranty period when it developed defect . So the opposite parties are bound to repair the motorcycle of the complainant and make it fully functional without charging any amount from the complainant.

10.     Resultantly the present complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to produce/ hand over the vehicle in question to opposite party No.2 within 7 days from the receipt of copy of order and the opposite party No.2 is  directed to repair the vehicle of the complainant  to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from delivery of vehicle by the complainant to opposite party No. As the complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties as the vehicle developed defect at the initial stage from the purchase of the vehicle and the complainant had visited the opposite parties many times to remove the defect, as such complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- as well as litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Both the opposite parties are jointly as well as severally liable to pay the amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 1.3.2017