Delhi

North East

CC/114/2015

Lokesh Kr. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajender Honda - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 114/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Lokesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Govind Sharma R/o 1/370-7, Gali No.1 Ashok Marg, Loni Road, Ramnagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.	M/s Rajendra Honda 969 E, 100 ft Road, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-32.   Rajendra Honda Workshop A-17, DSIEDC Industrial Complex GT Road, Jhilmil, Delhi-95.   Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt Ltd. Plot No.1, Sector-3, IMT Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana.		Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

30.03.2015 01.02.2018 05.02.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant in the present complaint is that he had purchased a motor cycle on 25.07.2014 from OP1- the seller on down payment of a sum of Rs. 63364/- in cash to OP1 and registration Number of above motor cycle is DL 5S BE 3518. However, the said motor cycle started giving problems within 15-20 days of its purchase wherein the front disc brakes were failing in as much as on applying them the vehicle was turning towards its right side. The OP1 advised the complainant to show the vehicle to their branch namely Prakash Honda situated at Greater Noida for removal of the said defect. Therefore on 14.08.2014, the complainant visited Prakash Honda for removal of the said defect where the complainant left the vehicle and on advice of OP1, took the vehicle for servicing later after the same had covered a travel distance of about 824 KMs. However, at the time of said service at the service station, the brake defect remained as it is and was not removed by the OPs. Thereafter Prakash Honda advised the complainant to take the service of their another service centre Masha Auto Pvt Ltd. at Bulandshahr, U.P. The complainant took the said vehicle at Masha Auto Pvt Ltd on 19.10.2014 where the OP told the complainant that there is a problem in con set which they can replace which was replaced by them and a sum of Rs. 834/- was charged from the complainant against this replacement. However within 10 days of the change of con set, while the vehicle was still under warranty another problem started when the both shockers were creating noise when the vehicle passed an speed breaker and the front and rear shocker pushed downwards which problem when reported to Ms. Masha Auto by the complainant, Masha Auto poured oil in the front shocker and adjusted the rear shocker and released the motor cycle to the complainant. However on the same day, on way back, the complainant realized that the problems still persisted, and after one week took the said vehicle again to Masha Auto where he was told that the problem cannot be removed by them and asked the complainant to take the motorcycle to the shop where it was purchased from for removal of problem. The complainant again went to the office of OP1 on 10.11.2014 and explained his problem of disk brakes and shockers where he was told by the manager of OP1 that this is a manufacturing defect. The complainant told OP1 that he was not getting any satisfactory answer or solution from neither of its two branches which had checked the said motorcycle. Lastly the complainant was asked to take the vehicle at the Jhilmil branch workshop of the OP1 i.e. OP2 herein on which advise the complainant took the said vehicle to OP2 on 29.11.2014 where on informing its employees, the said workshop issued a job card and booked the vehicle for repair and delivered an acknowledgment card of receipt of the vehicle and took the vehicle inside the workshop. However despite several visits made by the complainant to the OP2 to take back the delivery of the vehicle, he saw that nothing was done with the vehicle in term of repair and removal of defect and the complainant had to return without taking delivery of the said motorcycle which till date is lying with OP2. Finally the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service to the effect of intentional and deliberate in action on the part of the OPs in failure to remove the manufacturing defects in the said vehicle and not refunding cost thereof to the complainant holding all the OPs jointly and severally liable to do the same and compensate him for mental pain, harassment agony and cost of litigation. The complainant therefore vide prayer in the present complaint has sought the following reliefs against the OPs:-

1. Direction to OPs to replace the defective motorcycle with a brand new one with a new registration number or
2. Directions to OPs to refund Rs. 63,364/- to the complainant towards the cost of the motorcycle
3. Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the OPs towards mental, financial and physical harassment.

 

2. Notice was issued to the OPs and a consolidated / common written statement was filed by all the OPs taking preliminary objection that there was no defect in the said motorcycle and problem if any was instantly rectified with due satisfaction of the complainant and the said motorcycle regularly serviced by the OPs and no objection was put by the complainant with regard to service in any of the service job cards. The OPs further urged that the complainant never got the examination of the subject vehicle from any expert and in absence of any expert evidence/ report in respect of the alleged defects, the present complaint was not maintainable as also for no-joinder Prakash Honda and Masha Auto Pvt Ltd where the first and second free of cost service of the subject vehicle was got done by complainant. The OPs while admitting that the first service of the said vehicle was done by Prakash Honda Greater Noida on 14.08.2014, denied that Prakash Honda referred the complainant to Masha Auto Pvt Ltd on grounds that it is full fledged workshop in itself. The OP further urged that the complainant had himself brought the subject vehicle for second free service at Masha Auto on 19.10.2014. The OPs denied the con set / Kitrace steering was under warranty and submitted that it was a normal wear and tear part whose life depends on the driving condition of vehicle including air pressure in tyres and use of vehicle on pot holed and bumpy roads. The OPs further urged that the subject vehicle has run for 3670 KMs in the period of almost 3 months after second service which was not possible if there were problems in it. The OPs further denied the complainant visiting office of OP1 on 10.11.2014 and office of OP2 on 29.11.2014 while admitting that OP1 is the showroom of Rajendra Honda and OP2 is service centre/ workshop for any problem / repair / service of Honda two Wheelers. The OPs submitted that the complainant brought the subject vehicle for third free service on 29.01.2015 when the vehicle had run 6688 KMs and the service was done to the satisfaction of the complainant and the motorcycle was handed over to him the same day after which the complainant plied the said vehicle in normal course and it was only on 26.03.2015 that for the first time the complainant approached OP2 by way of complaint regarding noise in the handle of vehicle after the vehicle had run 9369 KMs. On receiving the complaint, the vehicle was checked and attended to, serviced and problem in the motorcycle of the complainant was rectified and Kitrace steering was replaced in the said vehicle and the said vehicle was readied for delivery the next day i.e. 27.03.2015 when the complainant was asked by the OP to collect the same from the workshop. However the complainant ignored repeated calls and follow-ups by the OP and did not pickup his vehicle. Lastly the OP was constrained to send a notice to the complainant after almost three months i.e. on 20.06.2015 to take the delivery of the vehicle subject to payment of repairing cost and parking charges @ 25 per day w.e.f 30.03.2015 payable to OP1 by the complainant for not taking the delivery of the subject vehicle in time from them. In view of the defence taken by the OPs, the OPs prayed for dismissal of present complaint.
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the written statement filed by the OPs wherein the complainant submitted that contrary to the plea of the OPs that complainant had never objected regarding in any of the service job cards, the complainant had been regularly getting the motorcycle repaired and serviced but the problems therein were not solved by the OPs and which is why as per the instructions of its employees the vehicle was left at the authorized service centre of OPs. The complainant also rebutted the OP that when the problem with respect to the said vehicle was not solved by Prakash Honda on 14.08.2014 they had indeed referred the subject vehicle to Masha Auto which was another of their authorized service centers. The complainant further submitted that it was on the advice, guideline and directions of the mechanic as well as authorized service centre, the complainant had left the vehicle at OP2 service centre and obtained the job card No. 2488 accordingly. Lastly the complainant denied any liability of any parking charges with respect to the motorcycle as claimed by the OPs as the motorcycle was unrepaired by the OPs and therefore left by the complainant. 
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties exhibiting relevant documents in support of their case/defence. Written arguments were filed by both the parties as well.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties in terms of their respective complaint and defence and have perused the case file very carefully and examined the evidence placed on record by both the parties.

It is admitted that the subject vehicle got services for the first time with Prakash Honda Greater Noida. However, as per the OP the subsequent services undertaken by Masha Auto were got done by the complainant on his own desire and choice. The change of Kitrace steering and rectification of brakes and shockers with respect to the said motorcycle from the period August 2014 till November 2014 at various service centers goes to prove that there were defects and problems in the functioning mechanism of the motorcycle from the very beginning since purchase for which the complainant was made to run from pillar to post and therefore OPs cannot take the defence it was only in March 2015 when the complainant had first approached the OPs for rectification of defects and replacement of Kitrace steering. However, the complainant did not take the delivery of the subject vehicle since March 2015 till date despite OPs having issued a notice to the complainant dated 20.06.2015 for taking the motorcycle on payment of repair cost and parking charges @ 25 Rs. per day March 30^th 2015 onwards for the reason that the subject vehicle was not working properly and the manufacturing defects therein were not solved during the period of service which got serviced by the complainant as per the guidelines and instructions of OPs and therefore disputed the parking charges levied on him.

6. We have applied our judicial mind and are of the considered opinion that complainant has made out a case against the OPs for deficiency in service on grounds of failure to rectify the manufacturing defects in the said motorcycle by their authorized service centers for which reason the complainant could not never take delivery of the motorcycle since March 2015 which is almost 2 years now. Therefore, all the OPs by virtue of being manufacturer and dealer and service center are jointly and severally liable qua the grievance of the complainant which liability has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Sushil Kumar Gabgotra and Ors in March 2006 relying upon its own judgment of Jose Philip Mampillil Vs Premier Automobile Ltd AIR 2004 SC 1529.
7. We accordingly, allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund a cost of Rs. 63,364/- to the complainant towards the sale price of the motorcycle within 30 days of receipt of this order.

We also award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental, financial, physical harassment undergone by the complainant payable to the complainant by the OPs jointly and severally since manufacturer and dealer are jointly liable for manufacturing defect as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Philip Mampillil Vs Premier Automobiles Ltd and the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Mahantayya Vs MD Omprakash of M/s Mahalaxmi Tractors (2006) 1 CPR 263 (NC). Let the order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days of receipt of this order.

8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on(05.02.2018)

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member