DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1104/2015
D.No.______________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAM DASS GUPTA,
S/o SH. RAM RATAN GUPTA,
R/o B-4/188-189, BLOCK-B,
POCKET-4, SECTOR-7, ROHINI,
DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. ROHINI HONDA,
(A UNIT OF ROOP LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD.),
H-34/103-104, SECTOR-3, (NEAR VISHRAM CHOWK),
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. HONDA MOTORCYCLE &
SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD.,
PLOT No. 1, SECTOR-3, IMT MANESAR,
DISTT.-GURGAON, HARYANA-122050. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 23.09.2015 Date of decision: 24.08.2018
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby
CC No. 1104/2015 Page 1 of 6
alleging that the complainant purchased Honda Aviator Scooty (SCV110GD) bearing frame no. ME4JF215DF8249131 & engine no. JF21E80296558 for a sum of Rs.55,410/- vide invoice no. 15IN02965 on 08.09.2015 from OP-1. The complainant further alleged that from the date of purchasing the scooty, the brake of the scooty is not working properly, horn faulty and tool kit is duplicate and also problem in alignment and the complainant and his son also slippedfrom the scooty due to the fact that brake is not working properly. Thereafter, the complainant approached to OP-1 in this regard but the official of OP-1 did not give proper response and assured that the problem will be rectified at the time of number plate fixing/1st service and thereafter the complainant approached so many times to OP-2 telephonically but no avail and the complainant also approached to OPs through e-mail on 10.09.2015 & 14.09.2015. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was shocked and surprised when there is no response till date from the company for reply nor sent e-mails and above mentioned scooty is still lying faulty and this shows the negligent and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.55,410/-
CC No. 1104/2015 Page 2 of 6
alongwith interest from the date of purchasing as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and filed written statement. In the written statement, OPs contended that the complaint is not maintainable and no cause of action is disclosed, there is no deficiency in service. OPs further submitted that the complainant has mentioned four problems namely i) brake not working properly, ii) horn faulty, iii) duplicate tool kit & iv) alignment problem and the complainant was informed to visit the authorized service center on number of occasions to rectify any problem in his scooty as per Honda policy but the complainant has till date not visited the authorized service center. OPs further submitted that the complainant purchased the scooty from OP and till date only approached the dealer on e-mail regarding his problems and has not approached the dealer physically even after being informed on the phone a number of times and the complainant even refused to follow scooty maintenance schedule (free service policy) of the company by not bringing his vehicle to authorized service center on 07.10.2015 (or 1000 kms whichever is earlier) and he was telephonically reminded for the same as courtesy and till date OP has not had a chance to inspect the scooty as the complainant has refused to allow inspection/repair of the same. Therefore, it is not
CC No. 1104/2015 Page 3 of 6
possible to judge whether the vehicle has any defect that can be rectified under warrantee policy of the company without opportunity of thorough inspection of vehicle at fully equipped authorized service center and service manager of authorized service center of OP has spoken to the complainant multiple times trying to explain mechanical working of the scooty on phone and assured all possible assistance to minimize any inconvenience to the complainant but to no avail. OPs further submitted that the complainant was not replying to phone calls positively and a letter requesting the complainant to visit at authorized service center dated 30.09.2015 was issued to the complainant so that his complaint can be rectified as per Honda Warrantee Policy to his satisfaction and in order to minimize inconvenience to the complainant, he was also offered doorstep pick up facility of the vehicle from his premises and the letter was dispatched vide India post i.e. RD534044640IN dated 30.09.2015.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of the OPs and submitted that OPs have taken a false stand.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 15IN02965 dated 08.09.2015 for purchase Aviator (SCV110GD) for a sum of Rs.55,410/- issued by OP-1 and copy of insurance policy for the
CC No. 1104/2015 Page 4 of 6
period from 07.09.2015 to 06.09.2016 (mid-night) issued by ICICI Lombard.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OPs Sh. A.K. Saini and Sh. Rajesh Chopra, both Managers of the work shop of OPs filed their separate affidavits in evidence. OPs also filed copy of letter dated 30.09.2015 sent by OP to the complainant alongwith postal receipt to visit the authorize service center of OP for inspection/check-up of the vehicle or to avail pick-up facility of the vehicle. OPs also filed job card dated 19.06.2018 issued by work shop of OP-2with respect to the service of the vehicle. OPs also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OPs in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for OP submitted that the case of the complainant cannot be believed in view of service job card of the vehicle dated 19.06.2018 which shows that the vehicle of the complainant has run 11058 KMS and this fact itself falsifies the case of the complainant. This Forum has considered the submissions of both the parties and gone through the documents. No documents have been placed on record by the complainant to show the defects in the vehicle as pointed out by the complainant. On the other hand, job card dated 19.06.2018 filed by OP-2 clearly shows that there is no such defect in the vehicle and no such defect in the vehicle is pointed out by the complainant. Thus,
CC No. 1104/2015 Page 5 of 6
the complainant has failed to prove his case by any cogent evidence. The complainant being devoid of merits is dismissed.
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. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 24thday of August, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
