Delhi

North East

CC/354/2016

SUMIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER HONDA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 354/16

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Sumit Singh S/o ShriMahendra Singh, R/o House No. B-1/70, St. No.2 Block B, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093,		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Rajendra Honda 969 E, 100 Feet Road, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-110094   Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Commercial Complex II, Sector-49-50, Golf Course Extn. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		22.12.16 09.05.23 05.07.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased  a bike from Opposite Party no.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 having Registration No. DL5SAS2682, Chassis No. ME4KC232CG8006506, Engine No. KC23E80036728 for a sum of Rs. 93,844/- on 27.03.2016 with two years warranty and three years extended warranty by paying a sum of Rs. 660/- to the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that Complainant had regularly complained about abnormal sound coming from engine to Opposite Parties. The Complainant stated that after 3-4 days of purchase the Complainant approached Opposite Party about the noise coming out from engine of bike. The Opposite Party No.1 took the vehicle from Complainant send it to service centre but the problem of noise coming out could not be resolved. After driving 1-2 days again noise came from the engine and Complainant complaint to Opposite Party No.1 at first service. On 20.04.16 the Complainant approached service centre of Opposite Party No.1 and after running bike and after hearing again the sound they sent recording of sound to Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party handed over the said vehicle without any rectification. The Complainant also sent email to customer care of Opposite Party No.2 on 04.04.16. On 21.07.16 Complainant approached service centre of Opposite Party for second service and complaint of abnormal sound coming out from engine and Opposite Party No.1 changed several parts of said vehicle and suggested that the said vehicle is having manufacturing defect because of which continuous noise coming out from engine of bike. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 partially charged several times to fix the bike of Complainant and several parts were changed under warranty. The Complainant took his bike on 14.11.16 from service centre of Opposite Party  with same earlier complaint but Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not resolved the sound problem coming out from engine. The Complainant took said vehicle to service centre of Opposite Party No.1 on 25.08.17 and 21.12.17 with same earlier complaint butOpposite Party No.1 and 2 did not resolved the problem of sound coming out of bike engine. Complainant has prayed for the cost of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs. 93,344/- and Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party denied that said vehicle had developed sound problem after 3-4 days of its purchase. On 21.07.16 Complainant approached Opposite Party  for abnormal sound coming out from engine and then Opposite Party checked the vehicle and replaced required parts under warranty without charging anything from Complainant. The Complainant also got second service done of said vehicle without any complaint. On 14.11.16 Complainant again took vehicle to Opposite Party with complaint of abnormal sound but on examination no abnormal sound was found in said vehicle. On 28.12.16 Complainant again approached Opposite Party for 3^rd service of said vehicle  and that time also no abnormal sound was found from engine of said vehicle. The Opposite Party stated that the said vehicle ran 7400 kms in 5 months after replacement of parts which would not be possible if the vehicle had any problem in it.
3. Further, the Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Partieswherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Partiesand has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Partyhas filed affidavit of ShriL. K Thakur, Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7.  We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a bike from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs. 93,844/- on 27.03.2016 with two years warranty and three years extended warranty by paying a sum of Rs. 660/- to the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that he had regularly complained about abnormal sound coming from engine time to time to Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.1 took the vehicle from Complainant send it to service centre but the problem of noise coming out from the engine could not be resolved. Inspite of several parts of the said vehicle was changed. 
8. The case of the Opposite Party is that Complainant approached Opposite Party   on 21.07.16 for abnormal sound coming out from engine and then Opposite Party checked the vehicle and replaced required parts under warranty without charging anything from Complainant. It is further stated by Opposite Party that  Complainant again approached Opposite Party on 14.11.16 and 28.12.16about the abnormal sound but on examination no abnormal sound was found from the engine of the said vehicle. Hence there is no deficiency on their part.
9.  On the order of this Commission the said bike was sent for expert opinion and inspection of the vehicle by Government approved agency. As per the expert opinion dated 04.11.19 there is inherent manufacturing defect persist in the engine of the bike since beginning. Copy of the same was supplied to the Opposite Party on 05.01.22. They have not contested the same inspite of given enough opportunities.
10. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the engine of the said bike was suffered manufacturing defect from the date of the purchase. Complaint is allowed. To meet the end of the justice, Complainant is directed to hand over the bike to the Opposite Party No.1 and on the receipt of the bike Opposite Party No.1and 2 directed to pay the cost of the bike i.e. Rs. 93,844/- jointly and severally to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- jointly and severally to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 
11. Order announced on05.07.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President