Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/81/2018

Mrs.Thirumal w/o.P.Govindrajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Balaji Automotive Rep by its Autorised person - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

18 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:18.07.2018                                                                

                                                                     Date of disposal          :18.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT:       THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                         : PRESIDENT

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                                            : MEMBER-1

  THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA   : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.81/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

•  
•  

                                                                                      Thirumalmangai,

                                                                                   RA-1, Lloyds Colony,

                                                                                  Royapettah,

                                                                                  Chennai-600 014.

•  

                                                                                               ….Complainant

              

•  

 

1.   M/s. Balaji Automotive,

Rep.by its Authorised Person,

Dealers for Honda Motorcycles &

Scooter India (P) Ltd.,

 570, T.H. Road,

Old Washermenpet, (Opp. Vaigai Mahal),

Chennai-600 021.

 

     2.  Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India P Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director,

          Commercial Complex II

          Sector 49-50, Golf Course Extension Road,

          Gurgaon, Haryana-122 018.

1.  

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s.Aiyar&Dolia and 1 other

 

Counsel for the 1^stopposite party        : M/s.R.Krishnan and 1 other.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party      : Ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,       : MEMBER-1

          This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund the sum of Rs.11,738/- charged towards engine repair charges for Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing registration no TN 18 R 7571 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 30.05.2018 and the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and to pay Rs.25,000/- cost of complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased the Honda Shine Motor cycle from the 1^st opposite party on 04.10.2013 with bearing Registration No. TN 18 R 7571 at a total cost of Rs.63,274/-with extended warranty commencing from 04.10.2015 to 03.10.2018 or odometer reading shows 72000 kms.  The complainant stated that on 17.05.2018 the vehicle was taken to 1^st opposite party for some services and minor issues. One employee of 1^st opposite party informed the complainant about an issue in the vehicle engine which needed reboring of engine.  The complainant informed about the extended warranty to the 1^st opposite party thereby the acknowledges the reboring of engine for which job card no.5032 was issued by the 1^st opposite party .  Following this service the complainant was charged Rs.11,738 for this service.  The opposite party had deliberately failed to do the repair jobs in the engine free of cost even within the extended warranty period.  Hence the complaint.

 

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The 2^nd Opposite party were set Ex-parte.  The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder.  The 1^stopposite party submitted that the complainant wants to get benefits of the extended warranty and she should obtained service from authorized service center alone.  Here she got serviced her vehicle with outside service station or third party and hence she will not get benefit of extended warranty.  The complainant serviced on 29.04.2014 with authorized service center at 8^th service and after two years again she serviced the subject vehicle with authorized service center and in between she serviced her vehicle with third party, since she serviced outside the authorized service center and she shall not entitled to get extended warranty and suppressing the facts of the complaint has been filed. Further submitted that the complainant bought Honda Shine with the first opposite party on 04.10.2013 without any defect. The warranty commencing 04.10.2015 to 03.10.2019 or odometer reader. 1^st opposite party stated that complainant has not serviced her vehicle with authorized service center from 30.04.2014 to 03.04.2016.  On 17.05.2018 brought the vehicle for service and informed that minor issue and engine noise.  Further the service engineer verified the job sheet and informed that the complainant had not regular in service of authorized service center and hence the complainant should not get benefit of extended warranty and inturn the complainant husband agreed to pay the charges and told to rectify the problem. If the vehicle is not serviced in authorized service center and the same shall not get benefit of extended warranty. Here the complaint history clearly shows that she had service her vehicle with third party not an authorized service center and hence the breached the terms and conditions.  Therefore the extended warranty stands cancelled and she shall not get any fruit from warranty.  When the terms and conditions were breached and hence she is not entitled to get benefit of warranty and prior to last three services.  Further she issued legal notice with false and frivolous contentions and the same was duly replied by the 1^st opposite party. Hence the 1^st opposite party is entitled to claim bill for their service and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair tradepractice  on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed?  To what extent?

The complainant have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked on their side.The 1^st opposite party has filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 document is marked on his side.2^nd Opposite party were set Ex-parte.

4.POINT NO :1

                    Perused documents of the complainant who purchased Honda Shine Motorcycle from 1^st opposite party on 04.10.2013 by paying a sum of Rs. 63,274/- the vehicle bearing reg no. TN 18 R 7571. It is admitted on both sides that the complainant bought the aforesaid bike with extended warranty for 04.10.2013 to 03.10.2018 or when odometer reads 72000 kms, whichever is earlier.  The complainant had carried first four free services and the next four paid services with Honda Authorised service centre which remains undisputed by the 1^st opposite party.  Subsequently the complainant takes the vehicle on 17.05.2018 for a service with minor issues availing with extended warranty when the odometer read 52466 kms to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party who initially accepts to carry free service and extended warranty comes up with an issue explaining the complainant that the vehicle engine needs reboring which would cost an approximate amount of Rs.11,000/- where the expenditure should be beard by the complainant himself.  The complainant with protest paid the charge amount of Rs.11,738/- and got delivery of the vehicle due to his dependence on the vehicle for his day to day work. Repairs and replacement job card vide JC5032 is marked as Ex.A1.  The Emails of 1^st opposite party and the service centre personnel requesting for repair and replacement details is marked as Ex.A2 and reply Email with claim details is marked as Ex.A3.  Ex.A4 reflects the detailed invoice of the service done by Opposite party 1 to a sum of Rs.11738/-.  Ex.A5 reflects the questionnaire of telephonic authorization of claim from 1^st opposite party which is the chronological order of services done on the disputed vehicle.  The petitioner has settled bill for the services which is marked as Ex.A6 the complainant sent a legal notice to opposite party stating the refund service cost of Rs.11738-/.  The complainant has filed Ex.A7 to show how the opposite party 1 denied all other allegations to be false except the purchase of  the motor cycle by the complainant.  The warranty for the vehicle purchased from Honda motor manufacturer is marked as Ex.B1.  The extended warranty period is marked as Ex.B2.  Ex.B3 represent service summary of the disputed vehicle which includes the questionnaire for telephonic authorization of claim policy no.HMMN 2638062 followed by the history of services done on the disputed vehicle.

            5. The complainant who is the owner of Honda shine vehicle bearing Reg.NO.TN 18 Y 7571 claims for a free extended warranty for three years from 04.10.2015 to 03.10.2018, the 1^st opposite party denied the extended warranty in view of the following terms and conditions furnished in the warranty.  The 1^st opposite party highlights Clause 14 of the warranty policy marked in page no.2 of Ex.B1 which states that the vehicle that has not been serviced  by HMSI authorized dealer as per the service schedule or which have not been operated and maintained and accordance with instructions mentioned in the owners manual and the service requirement which is contained in page of Ex.B2 states that the gap between two services should not exceed more than three thousand kilometers or two months for CB shine.  Failure to maintain and prove that the above service schedule has been complied with will invalidate this policy.  The aforesaid clause does not support the case of the complaint as Ex.B3  service history proves that the complainant has not serviced the vehicle with any authorized service center of Honda Motors between the 8^th service (29.04.2014) and 9^th service (04.04.2016) where the vehicle has covered a  distance of 32548kmsand where as it is not possible for a  motor vehicle to run without any services for such a huge reading and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the extended warranty.In Ex.A6 there is no mentioning that the amount was paid by the complainant and under protest. The complainant failed to prove the fact that the vehicle was regularly serviced in the authorized service center of Honda Motors.  On the other hand the service history of the vehicle which is marked as Ex.B3 would go to show that the said vehicle was given to service during the period as stated earlier to third party unauthorized serviced center and hence the opposite party rightly demanded the repair charges for the vehicle and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. PointNo.1 is answered accordingly.

6. Point No.2

            Based on findings given in the Point.No.1 there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.    

Dictated  by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by usin the open Commission on this the 18^th day of August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	17.05.2018	Job card issued by 1st opposite party.
Ex.A2	21.05.2018	Mail by 1st opposite party to service centre personnel.
Ex.A3	21.05.2018	Mail by 1st opposite party.
Ex.A4	29.05.2018	Tax invoice by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A5		Questionnaire for telephonic authorization of claim from1st opposite party.
Ex.A6	30.05.2018	Payment details made to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A7	01.06.2018	Legal notice issued to 1st opposite party along with acknowledgement card.
Ex.A8	08.06.2018	Reply notice from the 1st opposite party through its counsel.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B1		Warranty.
Ex.B2		Extended warranty.
Ex.B3		Service summary along with records.

 

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT