Delhi

New Delhi

CC/478/2014

Sh. Rajeev Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ring Road Honda-Bas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/478/14                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Rajeev Gupta,

S/o Sh. S.S Gupta,

SP-27 (Shop plot no.27), D-Type Park,

Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Ring Road Honda-BAS Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,

40-42, Janpath, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Honda Cars India Ltd.,

Plot no.A-1, Sector-40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area,District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P-201306

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The complainant purchased a new Honda City car from the dealer OP 1 on 02.05.2014 and took delivery after 6 pm, in the evening, when he received a SMS from dealer to come and collect the car. He took delivery of car after 8 pm. On next day while using the car he noted that the odometer of the car showed that the car had already travelled 117 KM, During the day light he also noted that the car had usage marks, The doors were not properly aligned and showed gap after closing it, The body had scratches, the paint work was visible and noted many other things mentioned in the complaint supported with 10 photographs. These defects were not visible in the artificial lights in the showroom and showed up during the day. All these defects apparently were due to use of the vehicle and its deterioration which was sought to be covered by repaint etc, leaving marks etc and perhaps due to rough driving and hit etc. the bumper and doors were affected. He brought these to the notice of dealer as well as Honda Motors, OP 2 on 4th and 5th May. The dealer examined the car but failed to take any action to get the car examined for defects removal etc. The manufacturer maintained that all vehicles are delivered to dealer after all OKs and checks. The relationship between the OPs is on principal to principal basis and that there was no manufacturing defect to warrant replacement of car and the dealer was responsible to maintain the car during the warranty period and before the sale to the consumer.

We have considered the reply and evidence of OP1 which has denied the averment in the complaint. The complainant has produced photographs of odometer reading and ten other photographs to show poor workmanship, and defects mentioned in the complaint. We have heard the sub missions of both the parties. The usage of car of 117 KMs before delivery and defects and marks of usage as shown by photographs on record speak themselves. It is obvious that the complainant has been given used car by the dealer with some fresh paint work done to conceal the usage or touching work on mirror glass, still some scratches remained and that is why the delivery was made after sunset so that such things do not show up at night light. In case OP 2 gave the car to OP 1 with some defects or poor workmanship, then also it is OP 1,which is responsible to accept such a product from manufacturer  and responsible to complainant for such usage, or it should explain the usage when the car was with OP 1 before giving delivery to complainant.

After consideration of all the material on record, we find that OP1 is liable for compensating the complainant and is also liable to remove the defects in door etc, and other defects removed at its own cost. No engine defect is reported affecting performance of the car to warrant its replacement. In the circumstances; we award compensation of Rs.1 lakh for delivering used car as shown by its running or 117 kms. In addition the OP 1 get the defects removed free of charges, to the satisfaction of complainant within a time frame of 2 months  to be mutually agreed, failing which OP1 will pay additional Rs.35,000/- to complainant to get him done by him at his own cost and leisure.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 20.10.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER