Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1170/2014

VONOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIME HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2018

ORDER

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

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

                                                                                               Consumer complaint no.    1170/2014                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution              14/12/2014

                                                                                                        Order reserved                    09/08/2018

                                                                                                        Date of Order                      13/08/2018               

In matter of 

   Mr. Vinod Gautam, adult

   S/o – Late Sh Keshav Dev Sharma     

   R/o- A- 37, Batla Appartment  

   Patpargunj, Delhi 110092 .…………………..…………..………………………..………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                           

                                                                              Vs

1-Mr Vinod Bhardwaj, Manager,

    Prime Honda Capital Car Pvt Ltd.

    Plot no. 01, Patpargunj Industrial Complex

    Nr Mother Dairy, Delhi 110092

 

2-Mr Jitendra Kumar Nanda, Director,  

    Capital Car Pvt Ltd.

    R/o- 254, Sec. C-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070

 

3- Mr Kamal Manchanda, Secretary

    Capital Car Pvt Ltd.

    R/o- P-20, Patel Nagar –West, New Delhi 110008

 

4- Mr Abdul Vahid Hassan Al Rostamani 

5- Khalid Abdul Vahid Hasan Rostamani

6-Mickal Ayat  

All 4to6 – c/o-Capital Car Pvt Ltd., R/o- 254, Sec. C-1,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070……………………………………………………………….Opponents                                                     

 

Complainant                                    Mr Vinod Gautam – Adv. –In person

Opponent’s(1to 6) Advocate        Mr Manish Mishra      

 

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 who is a practicing advocate for the deficiency in services u/s 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) and r/w sec. 2(1)(r) for unfair trade practice against all OPs.   

 

Facts of the case –

Complainant, owner of Honda accord DL4CAH0376, took his car for regular services to OP on 4/2/2014. After inspection, certain defects were told and noted in the job card and started doing services of their own. It was written in job card that Arm-bush were also defective, so after doing services, car was handed over to the complainant (Ex CW1/1 , 1A & 1B).

It was stated that on next the day, some noise was noted from Arm bush, so immediately OP were informed on telephonically and again car was taken by his son to the workshop on 24/02/2014 where service engineer inspected and told that there was no problem and car was brought back. After some time, the same noise was coming so OP took away his car to their workshop and told that Staring Rack and Rod were not working properly and would require replacement as it was due to wear and tear (Ex CW1/2 & 3). Complainant stated that OP did not check his car when it was taken for service and telling parts defective one after other means dealing in unfair trade practice and deficiency in their services by which complainant was incurring financial loss.  

Complainant alleged that his car was kept with OP till 27/02/2014 and without his knowledge maximum parts were replaced which were working properly before service. When number of parts was found defective during checkup, complainant brought his car back from the workshop of OP and made complaint to OP1 who assured to get his defects rectified. He thereafter again took his car to OP workshop on 31/07/2014 and brought back on 09/08/2014 and incurred financial loss of Rs 32828/-which was paid to OP (Ex CW1/4,4A). But other charges of parts were refused to change ( Ex CW1/5 & 5A).

It had been stated that complainant got his car checked at other Honda service station who told that due to negligent and deficient services done by OPs, would cost around Rs 1.5 Lacs to get all the defects removed. Hence it was proved that OP had not done services properly even after taking huge amount time to time from complainant.

Complainant sent legal notice on 02/04/2014 for rectifying all the defects within 15 days from receiving of this notice otherwise suit for damages would be filed against OPs in a competent court (Ex CW1/6).

When no reply was received, filed this compliant and claimed Rs 50,000/- for deficient services done by OPs and Rs 1.5 to meet future expenditure from other service station with Rs 5 lacs as mental and physical harassment with Advocate fee Rs 31,000/-.

 

After receiving notices, OP2 jointly filed an application for deletion of names of directors in person and Company may be made an answering party before this Forum and fresh memo of parties be filed, but the same application was not decided.  So, OP 2 on behalf of all OPs filed written statement. OP2 submitted that complaint was filed in the names of the employees which were not required as they were not the necessary parties. It was submitted that complainant had no privity of contract with the employees of M/s Capital Cars Pvt Ltd.

 

It was submitted that the car of complainant was brought to the workshop of OP2, so employees of OP2 were nothing to do with complainant. As no proper memo of the parties was filed by the complainant, hence complaint may be dismissed. It was stated that complainant was not a genuine consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because complainant had not disclosed correct facts about his car as the said car in question was registered in the name of M/s Saya Buildcon Pvt Ltd which was purchased from M/s Ring Road Honda dealer of Honda cars.  He had not stated or submitted any evidence about this fact and not submitted any proof of ownership of the car means intentionally hidden this fact before Forum. 

 

It was submitted that the car used to come for routine paid services as car which was purchased on 19/10/2006 and used to come for routine services from 08/07/2007 to 25/02/2011 from M/s Saya Buildcon. After 25/05/2011, this car came for accidental repairs on 14/10/2011 and on 21/10/2011 and Power Steering Fluid service on 25/06/2012. The said car came for routine service after two years ie on 04/02/2014 (Ex Ann. OPW1/1 colly). On this date, car had run 82,152 km against 80,000 km as per manufacturer guidelines. Though there were no major defects except for checking all four power windows, UV coating. The service engineer pointed out certain defects like Steering Pump Leakage and other checkups as car had run beyond specified mileage (80,000km), but complainant refused to get such defects rectified.

All such recommendations had been noted in the job sheets (Ex OPW1/2to 9). It was further stated that complainant again brought his car on 31/07/2014, certain defects were pointed out by the service engineer, but again complainant never gave his consent to get repair done. All such defects requiring repairs were noted in invoice dated 12/08/2014 and 11/09/2014 which clearly establishes complainant’s intention and refusal.  

 

It was further stated that complainant had raised expenditure of future repair cost of his car for Rs 1.5 lacs on presumption basis without any evidence was put on record. The financial loss shown on account of deficiency in services by OPs of Rs 50,000/-had no merit as no evidence of loss whereas services charges were zero as per invoices and job sheets. Also harassment for mental and physical for a tune of Rs 5 lacs without evidence had no merit and complainant being practicing advocate and defending his own case and demanding his fee were bald and bare averments to compensation without any proof or evidence. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss complaint based on misconceived facts.  

 

Rejoinder filed by the complainant and denied all the replies submitted by OPs in written statement. It was stated that complainant was the real owner of the car and annexed RC of the car (Ex CW1/7). It was stated that it was wrong that directors could not be made parties in the suit for taking justice and complainant was a genuine consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was true that OP did unfair trade practice for taking money from consumer.  It was nothing to do with the ownership of car and was brought after two years for service with OP. After the service, car developed many defects which were not present before service was taken. It was stated that all the parts were got replaced by OP as and when asked for replacement. It was rightly stated that OP were telling defects one after other and were taking money. It was stated that OP did all work to confuse the complainant and took money illegally. Hence, all the replies submitted by OPs were wrong and denied.

Complainant also submitted his evidences through his own affidavit and affirmed 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 had also submitted additional evidence as ‘original bill’ of ‘Rajdhani Implex’ dated 15/07/2015 as a part of his evidence (Ex CW1/8).

OP2/ Mr Jitendra Kumar Nanda, working as Director with OP1 filed evidences on affidavit through his own affidavit along with OP3/ Kamal Manchanda, working as company secretary and Manager Legal who also submitted their evidences and both affirmed on oath that all the facts were correctly submitted in their joint written statement on record (Ex OPW1/1 to9). It was re-stated that this complaint was wrong in the eye of law as company directors and company secretary with other employees were made as party. Complainant could not understand who the necessary party to allege negligence was. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with cost.  

OP also submitted reply and objections to ‘Additional Evidence’ of July 2015 submitted by the complainant in July 2017 which showed the invoice of spare parts of a car. It was totally denied that such additional evidence had any importance as it was neither in the complaint nor in evidence and more so, this additional evidence could not be considered as an evidence as it was not supported by bill of repairs or service charges. Only purchase of spare parts were shown which even does not show any authenticity and genuineness for Honda car. The purchase spare parts purchased from a local shop. Many spare parts were already mentioned in job sheets of OP, but complainant did not get repaired from any authorised workshop. So, OP did not take any responsibility of the additional evidence as Additional Bill.

 

Complainant also filed an application for cheating done by the OPs with a copy of complaint lodged to the local police and before Hon CJM of Ghaziabad through PS Indrapuram dated 12/12/2017 and 25/11/2017 (Ex CW1/10) along with job sheet dated 14/10/2017 and also filed an application before this Forum for claiming further intentional loss of about Rs 2 lacs by OP in his another application dated 12/12/2017(Ex CW1/11).

OP had also put their reply of the said application with annexure 1 marked as Ex OPW1/10, 10A & 11 where OP stated that certain recommendations had been clearly written as cabin lamp not working, all door chaker noisy, all door lamps not working, wiper bolts broken, rack seal leakage, steering pump seapage and noisy, but complainant refused to get all the work done which was evident from annexed photocopy of invoices dated 12/09/2017 and 14/10/2017 where no charges were taken and bill amounts were zero. It was stated that the said car had run 103166 KM and above mentioned problems were needed repair and replacement.

 

Complainant did not agree for further investment and left his car at the OP’s workshop, but did not handed over the keys of his car and thus the same car in question is lying at the OP workshop which was accepted by OP also in their reply dated 24/04/2018. OP had given detailed breakup of invoice of all the spare parts to be fitted during service (Ex OPW1/10, 10A & 11). Hence, complaint has to be dismissed.   

 

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 OP1 where his car had run 103166 km besides complainant had not disclosed when he purchased this car which was being used for official (commercial) purposes and whether the said car was had ever covered under any extended warranty at the time of taking services in Feb. 2014. Though this fact was not very important to us, but complainant had to mention all correct facts when he had filed complaint in Dec 2014.

 

It was also noted that complainant had purchased some spare parts from local auto shop which do not show any authenticity to sell genuine Honda spare parts and whether those purchased spare parts were ever fitted in the said car by any Honda service engineer or by local service center. Also, whenever any additional evidence has to be filed during the pendency of complaint, it has to be supported by affidavit, but here ‘additional evidence’ as ‘original bill’ was not supported by affidavit, so it cannot be taken on record for any consideration. Hence the same stand rejected.

In addition to this, complainant has prayed for his future expenditure for amount Rs 1.5 lacs (without any bill/evidence), cannot be presumed as financial loss would occur due to the deficiency of OPs. Also, it is evident that the said car had run over one lacs mileage, would certainly require certain major repairs specially when car had earlier been in use as commercial purposes and complainant had himself refused for timely replacement of genuine spare parts. Also leaving car at OP workshop without handing over keys of the car, OP has no liability to do service without proper consent and job card.   

Hence, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit as complainant has failed to fasten liability single concrete evidence for OPs deficiency and his ‘future loss’. That being so, this complaint deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without cost. There is no order as to other relief.     

 

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