Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/163/2017

Mr.P.G.Mohan S/o.Gopalan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Honda Cars India Ltd Rep by its Managing Director ,Capital Honda audit auto compny (P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.T.Narendran

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.07.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on:  17.02.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY  THE 17^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.163/2017

 

 

Mr.P.G.Mohan,

S/o. Gopalan,

Aged about 70 years,

No.04/201, 8^th Street,

MGR Road, Palavakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

 

1.Honda Cars India Ltd.,

Rep by its Managing Director,

409, Towers B, DLF Commercial Complex,

Jasola, New Delhi – 110 025. 

 

2. Capital Honda,

 Aadit Auto Company Pvt Ltd.,

Rep by its managing Director,

Complaint-48, 2^nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

 

3.Aadit Auto Company Pvt Ltd.,

Rep by its managing Director,

No.18, GST Road,

 Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 041.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                         : M/sV.Narendiran, P.K.Rajaggam,

                                                                      M.Krishnan

Counsel for  1^st opposite party                    : Mr. Kochhar & CO

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties         : M/s.S.V.Udayakumar, D.Johnsamuvel,

                                                                       S.Dinesh Babu, V.Palanikumar

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The complainant purchased pearl  white color, Honda JAZZ 1.2 V CVT (I-VTEC) on 31.08.2015 from Capital Honda, No.18, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027 for a sum of Rs.8,03,200/- by invoice dt 31.08.2015 bearing No.SR 2/Sale 15-16/08/423 and was covered by extended warranty. The complainant state that though he has been using it as per the Manual and keeping  it under timely service, he was shocked and surprised that within 14 months from the date of purchase, rust was formed on the front door of the car and the same condition was also found in other doors of the car and it made the car look bad and  informed 2^nd opposite party by way of email dated 27.12.2016. The 2^nd & 3^rd  opposite parties had been merely delaying the issue without redressing complainant’s  grievance of changing the car’s doors, which is rusted and unbecoming of Honda car workmanship.   Instead of  replacing the doors, the opposite party’s personnel  had suggested to the complainant to claim insurance as if the doors were damaged in an accident  and then raise a claim on the insurance, so that they could replace the same. Car is covered by warranty and service and the complainant is totally frustrated for deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

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

          The complainant has failed to prove in his complaint that the alleged rusting has occurred due to any manufacturing defect. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from opposite parties   2 & 3 who is one of the authorized dealers. The opposite parties 2 & 3 have their own role to play and neither party assumes any liability for the  acts/omissions of the other party. The alleged problem in the vehicle is not due to any manufacturing defect. The vehicle was duly inspected by the complainant before taking its delivery and the complainant only after being satisfied signed the New Vehicle Handover Form. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd & 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

           The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties state that the vehicle Honda Jazz Petrol version 1,2 V CVT (I-VTEC) bearing registration on TN 07 CC 8778 was entrusted with this opposite parties workshop on 12^th September 2016 with a complaint of rusting of doors. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties had already appraised the complainant that the warranty of the said car will not  cover the rusting caused due to external or internal factors and hence the coverage warranty for the said vehicle was repudiated. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties state that due to the persistent request of the complainant with due diligence this opposite parties had again inspected the said vehicle along with HCIL technical support and the following fallacies were deduced. Entire under body with height of  nearly 32 cms from the ground level got rust marks the lower horn assembly is totally rusted fuel brackets canister bolts are all rusted.

1. Dried fungus marks, hard water marks evident in the under body and confirming that the said vehicle was immersed in water stagnated area for a longer duration
2. The limited usage of the car in nearly 18 months also substantiate that the car had mostly remained unused.

It had been concluded that the rusting was attributed to the car being in a water logged area or it had been affected by the floods which resulted in rusting of the entire under body. The opposite parties are willing to serve and resolve the complainant’s demand and as the complainant had himself stated that the said vehicle was entrusted for service and that the opposite parties had taken care hence there is no deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant  purchased pearl  white color, Honda JAZZ1.2 V CVT (I-VTEC) on 31.08.2015 from Capital Honda, No.18, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027 for  a sum of Rs.8,03,200/- bearing No.SR 2/sale 15-16/08/423 vide Tax invoice in Ex.A1 and certificate of registration is Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the Honda Care Road side Assistance Certificate Ex.A4 is the proof for extended warranty.  Within 14 months of its purchase rust was formed on the front door of the car and the same condition was found in the other doors of the car. The complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party through e-mail dated 27.12.2016 and its reply dated 06.01.2017 is Ex.A10 & Ex.A11. The request in Ex.A10 is to replace the doors as the car was under service. E-mail correspondence by the complainant  to the opposite parties  are Ex.A10 to Ex.A18.  Ex.A19 is the Service Record History. The grievances of  the complainant is that  his request for  changing the doors of the car has not been done and replaced. Legal notice was issued by the complainant  on 15.05.2017 vide  Ex.A20 and its acknowledgement cards are in Ex.A21. The car was under warranty but the opposite parties  had not responded to rectify the defects inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant  and the 1^st opposite party  as  the manufacturer, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties  being the sales and service agents of the 1^st opposite party  are responsible  and answer  for the claim of the complainant.

05. The 1^st opposite party would contend that there is no defect in the vehicle and the alleged problem is not due to manufacturing defect. The complainant being satisfied with the vehicle’s quality and standard had taken the delivery of the vehicle and the alleged difficulty had arisen when the vehicle was in his possession and after its usage for more than a year. There is no direct dealing with the complainant and the 1^st opposite party. Damages caused due to external factors are not covered under warranty. No supporting expert evidence submitted by the complainant for the alleged defect. There is no specific allegation against this opposite party.  Hence complaint is to be dismissed.

            06. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties  would contend that warranty policy  of the said car will not cover the rusting caused due to external or internal factors. Rusting attributed to the car being in a water logged reason or it had been affected by the flood. Since the service was done regularly at the request of the complainant there is no deficiency on the part of 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties.

07. The case of the complainant is focused on the points as follows:  The complainant  has taken good care of his car and kept it under service regularly and also used it as instructed by the opposite parties even then car having developed rust and is unable to use it for any outings and impossible for the car to be used to its potential and has resulted in loss which caused him mental agony and stress and hence there is manufacturing defect and the opposite parties are liable to replace the said vehicle and also to compensate for their deficiency in service.

08. True copy of  letter of authority of the 1^st opposite parties  is Ex.B1. Copy of the dealership agreement is Ex.B2. Copy of the warranty is Ex.B3. Rust analysis report by the expert is Ex.B4. The services such as warranty and after sales service are generally provided by the sales person and authorized dealers such as 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties and for the said actions 1^st opposite party is not liable. The 1^st opposite party is only a Manufacturer. At the time of purchase admittedly there was no defect. The alleged defect is only after14 months later to its purchase i.e. when the vehicle was in possession of the complainant and as per the contention of the complainant   within its extended warranty period. It is for the complainant to prove the alleged rusting on the doors of the car had taken place due to any manufacturing defect on the part of 1^st opposite party  or else to establish by any convincing report to substantiate the alleged manufacturing defect or inherent manufacturing defect. As pointed out by the 1^st opposite party  there is no contract for  replacement of the vehicle during warranty  and hence the complainant  is not entitled to claim for the same.

09. The complainant  pointed out the regular check-up of the vehicle  and the vehicle being taken up for regular service. Hence  it was maintained by the complainant in a good manner. Even then it is alleged that there was a rust formation on the doors of the vehicle. However, the sudden allegation of rust as such will not amount to manufacturing defect and the complainant  cannot allege deficiency in service without attributing fault or imperfection by the 1^st opposite party. The opposite party  has conducted rust analysis through an expert vide Ex.B4.

           10.  Admittedly the rust formation on the car happened only 14 months after the purchase of the vehicle and after its regular usage and services. As per the Rust analysis report in Ex.B4 the vehicle has suffered from water logging. Warranty to replace the damaged parts arises only when there is a manufacturing defect. Hence the alleged problem of rust is not caused due an account of manufacturing defect by the 1^st opposite party  and warranty clause also ceases to operate in case of loss or damage which resulted directly or indirectly from the external causes such as accidents, bad weather, fire, theft ,collusion, freezing or heat as in warranty clauses, and also the alleged rusting could also be due to normal exposure or natural wear and tear which is not covered  as per the terms of the warranty.

             11. As per rust analysis report   the rust mark on  the affected parts are linear in nature and are about 32 cm above the ground level  got the marks of rust and also the lower horn assembly and fuel bracket  bolts are rusted. Dried fungus marks and hard water marks are noticed. These features indicates that the car was immersed in water stagnated area or in the flood water. It is also concluded by the expert in his report. But the complainant has neither proved the contra by  producing expert  report nor any relevant authenticated report.  The alleged advice by the opposite parties for the insurance claim is also not substantiated by the complainant. Moreover the limited usage of the car as per its used kilometers for 18 months indicates the car remained unused mostly. Therefore the report filed by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties  in Ex.B4 has to be considered as correct and  it  appears that the rust formation on all the doors of the car to a height of around 32cms is due to the negligent  and insufficient care taken  by the complainant only either during the flood or during water logging due to natural calamities and the warranty also will not cover the rusting due to external or internal factors.   Hence the coverage of warranty was repudiated by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties is proper.

             12. The conduct of the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties is noticed from the care taken and services done by them through the service records exhibited by the complainant whenever it is entrusted for service by the complainant.  The complainant failed to establish that there is manufacturing defect to the vehicle by 1^st opposite party and also there is deficiency in service by 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties. Therefore this forum is of the view that there is no manufacturing defect of the vehicle and no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get a replacement of a new vehicle and also any compensation for mental agony for deficiency in service.

13. POINT NO.2:

In view of the discussions held in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the opposite parties. Therefore there cannot be any mental agony and stress caused to the complainant  and the complaint fails and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

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

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 17^th day of February 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 31.08.2015                   Tax Invoice

Ex.A2  dated  08/2015             Certificate of Registration

Ex.A3 dated 10.09.2015                   Honda Care Road side  Assistance Certificate

Ex.A4 dated 10.09.2015                   Honda care extended warranty email

Ex.A5 dated 08.12.2016          Invoice-Audit Auto company Pvt – next service due date

Ex.A6 dated 11.07.2016          Invoice – Audit Auto company Pvt – next service due date

Ex.A7 dated 11.09.2016          Invoice-Audit Auto company Pvt – next service due date

Ex.A8 dated 11.03.2017          Invoice-Audit Auto company Pvt – next service due date

Ex.A9 dated 05.04.2017          Invoice-Audit Auto company Pvt – next service due date

Ex.A10 dated 27.12.2016        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A11 dated 06.01.2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A12 dated 10.01.2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A13 dated 03.02.2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A14 dated 09.02.2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A15 dated 10.02.2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A16 dated 14/02/2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A17 dated 03.03.2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A18 dated 06.03.2017        Email Communication to opposite party

Ex.A19 dated 09.10.2015        Service Record History

Ex.A20 dated 15.05.2017        Legal Notice to opposite parties

Ex.A21 dated 20.05.2017        Acknowledgement cards

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated 13.04.2017                   Authority Letter

 

Ex.B2 dated 01.04.2017                   Dealership Agreement

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                      Warranty Booklet

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                      Rust Analysis Report

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  2^nd & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

                                       …….. NIL ……

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT