Delhi

East Delhi

CC/488/2014

vikas jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

prime honda capital - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                               Consumer complaint no.     488 /2014                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution              04/07/2014

                                                                                                        Order reserved                   07/02/2019

                                                                                                        Date of Order                      11/02/2019               

   In matter of 

   Mr. Vikas Jain & Family  

   R/o  IX/1598 Tara Bawan   Opp. Patel Gali No. 1

   Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031……………..………….Complainant                                                                    

                                                                           

                                                                   Vs

1-The Manager,  

    Prime Honda Capital Car Pvt Ltd.

    Plot no. 01, Patpargunj Industrial Complex

    Nr Mother Dairy, Delhi 110092

 

2-The Director,   

    Capital Car Pvt Ltd.

    Ansal Trade Square  Complex,

    Main Link Road, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP 201012

 

3- The Owner,  

    Honda Car India Ltd.

    Plot no. A 1 Sector 40, 41

    Suraj Pur, Kasana Road,

    Greater Noida Industrial Dev. Area

    Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar UP 201306.……………………………………….Opponents                                                     

 

Complainant’s Advocate               Mr L G Das & Complainant in Person  

Opponent’s (1to2) Advocate        Mr Manish Mishra

Opponent 3 Advocate                    Adil Alvi      

 

Quorum ……………………………………Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                                                           Dr P N Tiwari               Member

                                                           Mrs. Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief--This complaint had been filed by the complainant for the deficiency in services and unfair trade practice against OPs.

Facts of the case – Complainant along with his daughter went to OP1 at Patpargunj Delhi for booking Honda Car and was assured to get some good gifts/ discounts on car accessories, but on the advice of his friend went to Southend Honda sails office at Saket, Delhi where he was assured more discount and other benefits, so booked Honda Amaze 1.5 SMT (IDTEC) by paying a cheque of sum of Rs 10,000/-on 21/12/2013 (Ex CW1/1) which he got cancelled on the assurance of OP1 so again complainant went to Prime Honda Capital Cars office at Patpargunj, Delhi to get some more bargain on discount. Senior executive promised to give two years service warranty as per complainant’s satisfaction. Believing assurance, booked Honda Amaze car on 31.12.2013 after paying Rs 50,000/-and on 15/01/2014 Rs 7,45,000/-and balanced Rs 3,911 on 30/01/2014 through cheques (Ex CW1/1A). Complainant also paid Rs 7150/-for extended warranty of two years in addition to standard warranty of two years (Ex CW1/2) and car insurance from ICICI Prudential through Honda Assure after paying Rs 22874/-(ExCW1/4) vide car registration no. DL 13 CC 3009.  

It was promised to hand over car on 30/01/2014 after fitting all accessories, but he could get delivery of car without complete fitting of accessories at late evening. It was stated that on 03/03/2014 he took first free service vide free service coupon (Ex CW1/4A). On 07/03/2014, he was going to attend his family wedding ceremony with his family, but car got stopped at Connaught Place and could not get any help from OP1 despite of calling repeatedly and even calling RSA (Road Side Assistance). With great difficulty, he could manage to reach home back by taking help of tow crane and could not attend marriage. In the morning of 08/03/2014, his car was towed by OP1’s assistance to OP2/workshop where it was revealed that due to ‘battery duck’ starting problem was noted. The workshop/OP2 prepared ‘Manual Service Repair Form’ vide form no. 10625 on 08/03/2014 under General Repair.  

It was stated that the fault was due to fitting of ‘door lights’ on 05/03/2014 which caused drainage of battery which was done by local person on the advice of sales supervisor of OP1. It was told at the time of purchasing car that if any job was got done from outsider, the warranty of the car would be violated, but complainant got door lights fitted on the advice of sale supervisor and had paid Rs 1900/-for which even receipt was not given. Complainant submitted that OP1 had done unfair trade practice even in issuing invoice of the car as OP1 charged Rs 7,98,911/- and issued bill of Rs 7,98,096/- so took Rs 815/-extra. Seeing deficient and careless attitude, filed this complaint and claimed refund of car a sum of Rs 7,98,911/-with harassment and misguidance Rs 9 Lacs and other charges Rs 32,100/-.  

Reply filed by OP1 and OP2 jointly and firstly put their objection for making complaint in their Director’s name and stated that complainant had purchased Honda Amaze car from OP1/M/s Capital Cars Pvt Ltd. as authorised dealer. It was stated that car got stopped on the midway to Gurgaon as stated by complainant and on inspecting the car by breakdown executive, the battery was totally discharged and stopped charging. When the car was brought to OP2/ Workshop of OP1, it was found that MICU coupler under Dash Fuse Box was found loose due to fitting of Door lights by complainant from some outsider mechanics and not through OP2, so due to this fault battery was getting discharged intermittently. Due to fitting of non genuine spare parts from out sider mechanics, warranty had been violated and this fact was duly informed to complainant during checkup at OP2 and through email also.

It was stated that up to first free service (03/03/2014) where car had run about 330 km without any mechanical problem, but when car was brought to workshop of OP2, his car had run about 380 km up to 08/03/2014 and complaint for ‘starting problem’. The said problem was rectified and details were explained in detail. It was also stated that complainant availed his 2^nd free service on 05/05/2014 and 3^rd free service on 08/08/2014 (Anne.1(colly). Since then complainant had never reported any defect or problem. As far as RSA was concerned, OP 1 or 2 never insisted as two years standard warranty was already with him and RSA was for his convenience in case of any emergency on road which was not opted by him, so OP1 and 2 could not be made liable for any deficiency in their services. Despite of violation of warranty conditions by complainant due to non genuine fittings of Honda parts, OP2 provided services as a goodwill gesture. Hence, there was no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice ever adopted. So it was prayed for dismissal of this complaint.  

OP3/ manufacturer of Honda car also submitted written statement and stated that complainant had never brought any evidence of manufacturing defect in the said car since it was purchased or availed free services.  As there was no contract of privity of contract between OP1 and complainant and grievances in reference of services or any parts, no deficiency and unfair trade practice could be labeled against them. OP3 also relied on ‘Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Nagendra Prasad Sinha’, & others in (II) 2009 CPJ 295 (NC) where Dealer and Manufacturer shares principle to principle relationship, so in absence of any defects, could not be held liable for deficiency in services or unfair trade practice. Neither OP1 nor OP3 had any contract with RSA, so allegation of deficiency in services by RSA, could not be seen in view of deficient services by OPs.

Rejoinder filed by the complainant and denied all the replies submitted by OPs in written statement. It was stated by complainant that OP1 and 2 did unfair trade practice for taking extra money from consumer. After first free service, car developed many defects which were not present before service was taken. It was due to defect in the car which was consuming all the power of the battery and battery was getting discharged frequently. Complainant submitted few news papers cuttings to stress deficiency of OPs on page no. 21 and 22 of rejoinder. Hence, all the replies submitted by OPs were wrong and denied.

Complainant also submitted his evidences through his own affidavit in ref to all three OPs written statements and reaffirmed on oath that all the contents and evidences were correct and true and on record. OPs were intentionally escaping from any liability due to deficiency in their services. Complainant filed evidences on his own affidavit and relied on invoice (Ex CW1/1) and crane charges for towing (Ex CW1/5) with job sheet (Ex CW1/6) along with email written to OPs (ExCW1/7 and Ex CW1/8). Hence his evidences were correct and true.  

 

OP 1and 2 submitted evidences on affidavit through Mr Kamal Manchanda, working as company secretary and Manager Legal who also submitted their evidences and affirmed on oath that all the facts were correctly submitted in their joint written statement on record (Ex OPW1/1to3). It was re-stated that this complaint was wrong in the eye of law as company directors were made as party. Complainant could not understand that who could be made necessary party to allege negligence and claim damages if proved.  Hence this complaint may be dismissed with cost. It was submitted that complainant suppressed many correct facts and brought all wrong issues before the Forum.

It was submitted that despite of violation of warranty terms and conditions by complainant by getting fitted non Honda genuine parts as door lights by outsider mechanic and when battery was getting discharged, started putting allegations on OPs. Despite of this, OP2 under goodwill gesture, service was provided and thereafter complainant never came for any problem or defect. Hence, evidences of OPs be considered to be correct and this complaint be dismissed with cost.    

Written arguments were submitted by complainant and stressed on facts of his complaint and said that as he wanted the detail facts of the said car so booked with Southend Honda by paying Rs 10,000/- and thereafter cancelled. As more benefits were offered by OP1, so booked this car and just after first free service, he faced many technical problems and OP2 never did their service as per complainant’s satisfaction. So his complaint was based on correct facts and evidences and be compensated in the form of replacing new car with compensation.  Taken on record.   

Arguments were heard from both party’s Ld counsels and after perusal of facts and evidences on record, order was reserved.

We have perused all the facts and evidences on record. It was noted that complainant took his  car for routine service to OP2 when his car had run 323 km, but due  to fitting of non genuine parts as Door lights by outsider, battery was getting discharged. Despite of informing by OP1 for terms and conditions which were given by manufacturer/ OP3, complainant violated warranty conditions and alleged deficiency on OP. As no deficiency in services of OP2 and unfair trade practice from OP1 was seen and also no evidence of manufacturing defect was brought on record by complainant, no  liability can be fastened on any OPs.

 

Complainant being an educated person purchased good segment car, did not read warranty conditions as his eyes power were weak, cannot be presumed to be correct. Rather his complaint is based on presumption and assumption of facts. Considering all the facts and evidences, this complaint is devoid of merit so deserves to be dismissed with cost. Hence complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs 10,000/- to be deposited in East District Legal Service Account at Karkarduma Court within 15 days of receiving of this order copy.   

 

The copy of order be sent to the parties as per section 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under section 20(1) of the CPR.  

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari-Member                                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur -Member                                    

                                                     Sh. Sukhdev Singh - President