Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/655

M/S HONDA CAR INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIKHLESH GURUDAS - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 11.05.2016 passed in C.C.No.420/2015 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

M/S HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGER LEGAL,

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:

PLOT A-1, SECTOR 40/41,

SURAJPUR KASNA ROAD,

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA,

DISTRICT-GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR (UP)                                                                …       APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

1. NIKHLESH GURUDAS SUKHRAMANI,

    S/O SHRI GURUDAS BASANTRAM SUKHRAMANI,

    R/O HOUSE NO.156, VIJAY NAGAR,

    NEAR CHETAKPURI, GWALIOR (M.P.)

 

2. SUMEDHA HONDA INDIA LTD,

    HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:

    KEDARPUR, SHIVPURI LINK ROAD,

    LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.).

 

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:

    NEAR OLD HIGH COURT,

    NEAR ALLAHABAD BANK,

    JAYENDRAGAJ, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                        …. RESPONDENTS.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ruchir Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondent no.1 and 2.

            Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 22.07.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

                   This is an appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant against the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

-2-

Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.420/2015 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed against the opposite party no.1 and 2.

2.                The facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that he had purchased a vehicle Honda Amaze car in the year 2013 from the opposite party no.2-dealer of the manufacturer the opposite party no.1. The registration number of the subject vehicle is MP-07 CB-8002. Thereafter he got the subject vehicle insured with the opposite party no.3-insurance company. It is submitted that on 11.07.2015 there was heavy rainfall in Gwalior and when he was returning from his relative’s place suddenly there was problem in the vehicle and stopped again and again. He immediately informed the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 towed his vehicle to their workshop for which he paid Rs.2000/- as towing charges to the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that after inspecting the car, the opposite party no.2 informed the complainant that the subject vehicle is having starting problem as water entered into the engine for which over haul of the engine is necessary which will incur expenses of Rs.68,000/-. It is further submitted by the complainant that he intimated the opposite party no.2 that the vehicle is still under warranty and insured with the opposite party no.3. Both the opposite party no.2 and 3 declined as the damages are not covered under the warranty and

-3-

insurance cover. It is submitted that it was informed that the expenses towards engine repair will have to be borne by the complainant and therefore the complainant gave his consent to opposite party no.2 to repair the subject vehicle at his costs.

3.                It is further submitted by the complainant that the opposite party no.2 repaired the subject vehicle on 07.08.2015 and for that charged Rs.60,329/- from him which he paid via cheque under protest. It is alleged that fault in the vehicle arose due to manufacturing defect despite that the opposite party no.2 dealer and service centre of opposite party no.1 unilaterally charged Rs.60,329/- towards repairs of the vehicle. The opposite party no.3-insurance company despite the fact that the car was insured with them did not pay the repair charges which amounts to deficiency in service.   The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.1,12,329/- with interest.

4.                The opposite party no.1/appellant resisted the complaint stating that the complainant has not approached the District Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The opposite party no.1 is manufacturer and for any acts and omissions of opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.1 is not liable. There in no contract between the complainant and the opposite party no.1. Terms and conditions of

-4-

dealership agreement are applicable to both parties. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as also there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1. The subject vehicle experienced severe problem in its engine due to hydro lock as it was driven in a waterlogged area which led water to ingress into the main parts of the engine. It is pertinent to note that such hydro lock problem occurs when a liquid substance gets into the engine cylinder.  It is further pointed out that the problem occurred due to negligence on part of the complialnant who had driven the vehicle in a water logged area. Such acts are not covered under warranty obligations.

5.                It is further submitted that the Owner’s Manual specifically cautious the owner under the driving head ‘Driving in Bad Weather’ do not drive on the road where water is deep as driving through the deep water will cause damage to the engine and vehicle would break down. The warranty obligation of the opposite party no.1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from manufacturing defect within the limits of the warranty through expert evidence. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party no.1. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. 

-5-

6.                The opposite party no.2 remained absent before the District Commission.

7.                The opposite party no. 3-insurance company in their reply before the District Commission submitted as per their record the subject vehicle did not met with any accident as also no claim was filed. The complainant never informed the insurance company even otherwise manufacturing defects and defects under the warranty are not covered under the insurance policy. The insurance policy covered damages caused due to accident. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed against it with costs.

8.                The District Commission partly allowing the complaint directed the opposite party no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.60,329/- to the complainant. Costs of Rs.1,500/- is also awarded. It is also directed that the aforesaid amount be paid within 30 days failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a.

9.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

10.              Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/appellant argued that the findings recorded by the District Commission are contrary to the facts and documents on record. The District Commission erred in believing false version of complainant that subject vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect where it was a case of hydro locking resulting from

-6-

driving the subject vehicle in rain water logged areas and is not a manufacturing defect. Also it is not covered under the warranty provided by the opposite party no.1. He argued that the District Commission erred in holding that the opposite party no.1 and 2 failed to prove that there was heavy rainfall on 11.07.2015 in Gwalior caused water logging on roads whereas the complainant himself admitted in his complaint that defect in the vehicle arose on account of heavy rainfall in Gwalior on 11.07.2015 while he was visiting and returning from his relative’s place. The complainant has not filed any document that there was any problem arose in the subject vehicle before 11.07.2015.

11.              He further argued that the District Commission misinterpreted the warranty policy provided by the opposite party no.1 which does not cover Hydrostatic Locking of the engine and has erroneously held that since the subject car was within warranty period, all repairing work should have been covered and carried out free of cost. The District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing joint and several liability on the opposite party no.1 and 2 which is clear in contravention to the dealership agreement between the opposite party no.1 and 2.

12.              Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on decisions of Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.766 of 2021 (Mercedes Benz India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Smt. Revathi Giri) decided on 11

-7-

October 2023, Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Nagener Prasad Sinha 2009 NCJ 720 (NC) and in P. Rathinadurai Vs M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd and another 1986-2006 CONSUMER 11216 (NS) in support of his contentions.

13.              Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3-insurance company argued that the complainant never informed the insurance company about any damages caused to the insured vehicle nor

has filed any claim. Even other wise the damages due to manufacturing defects are not covered under the policy. Under the insurance policy damages caused to accident are covered. She argued that there has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company and therefore, the District Commission has rightly exonerated the insurance company.

14.              The complainant has filed his affidavit along with documents C-1 to C-12. On behalf of opposite party no.1 an affidavit of Amit Sinha, Manager Legal has been filed. On behalf of opposite party no.3 an affidavit of M. S. Chandel along with document R-1 has been filed.

15.              We have carefully perused the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. On perusal of record we find that admittedly the complainant purchased the subject vehicle in the year 2013 and as per his own statement made in the complaint that on 11.07.2015 there was heavy rainfall in Gwalior and when he was returning from his

-8-

relative’s place suddenly there was problem in the vehicle and stopped again and again of which he gave intimation to the opposite party no.2 the dealer. The opposite party no.2 after examining the vehicle informed him that since water entered in the engine and therefore it required over haul of the engine. The opposite party no.2 repaired the same and charged Rs.60,329/- from him. The complainant alleged that since the vehicle was under the warranty period, the dealer ought to have repaired the subject vehicle free of cost.

16.              The defence of the opposite party no.1-manufacturer is that the subject vehicle suffered problem in its engine due to hydro lock as water entered into the engine and the problem occurred due to negligence of the complianlant who had driven the vehicle in a water logged area. Such acts are not covered under warranty obligations.

17.              From the record, we find that vehicle purchased in the year 2013 and for the first time he faced problem on 11.07.2015 when admittedly he himself driven the vehicle in a water logged area cause due to heavy rainfall and the vehicle suffered problem in engine due to hydro lock. The contention of the complainant that the defects are covered under the extended warranty. We have gone through the document relating to warranty (C-7) where in under the heading of Limitations in Terms and Conditions, it is specifically mentioned that The extended warranty will not

-9-

apply to (f) that “Any damage that results from operating methods other than those indicated in the owner’s manual or use beyond the limitations specified by Honda Cars India Limited (maximum load, passenger capacity, engine speed and others.”

18.              On going through the owner’s manual which is at page 71 under the heading Precautions While Driving In Rain “Avoid driving in deep water and on flooded roads. This can damage the engine and driveline or cause electrical component failure.”

19.              On bare perusal of the above we find that there were specific instructions in the owner’s manual regarding driving during rain as also in warranty it has been mentioned that extended warranty will not apply if vehicle is operated against the methods prescribed in owner’s manual. Thus we find that the problem occurred due to negligence on part of the complianant who had driven the vehicle in a water logged area caused due to heavy rainfall. The vehicle suffered from hydro lock and not due to any manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle which was not covered under warranty obligations. The warranty obligation of the opposite party no.1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from manufacturing defect within the limits of the warranty through expert evidence.

 

-10-

20.              From the material available on record it is manifest that no expert opinon of any authorized laboratory or authority has been brought on record by the complainant to establish that the vehicle suffered manufacturing defect. Also the complainant not made any request to the District Commission under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to get it examine by the appropriate laboratory or authority.

21.              Thus we find that the complainant failed to prove by any documentary evidence or expert report that there was any manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle. The complainant also failed to prove that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. 

22.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint. In our considered view the impugned order cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

23.              In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

             Acting President                                  Member