Haryana

Ambala

CC/373/2011

J.I SIKDAR S/O SH A.A SIKDAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 373 of 2011

                                                          Date of Institution         : 29.11.2011

                                                          Date of decision   : 22.02.2017

 

                    J.K. Sikdar S/o Sh. A.A. Sikdar, presently Accounts Squadron, Air Force  Station, Ambala Cantt; permanent resident of VPO Nagarbera, Distt.  Kamrup, Assam.

……. Complainant.

 

1. S.D. Honda, through its Branch Manager/Prop.Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City.
2. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd; Plot No. 1, Sector-3, IMT Manesar, Distt. Gurgoan.
3. M/s Auto World through its Prop. Opp Capital Cinema Ambala Cantt.

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Birbal Dua, counsel for Op No.3.

                   Sh. B.S. Garg, counsel for OPs No. 1 and 2.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had brought C.B. UNICORN bearing registration No. HR-01-AC-3243, Chassis No. ME4KC09CAB8078622 from the OP No. 1 vide invoice No. 111N00141 dated 29.04.2011 in consideration of Rs. 61143/- and over and above to this an expenditure of Rs. 760 was incurred with the warranty of two years. Further submitted that in the month of July 2011, the vehicle in question started giving problem like cut off automatically in rain and the complainant approached to the OP No. 1 for rectifying the problem and the mechanic of OP No. 1 tried to rectifying the same but inspite of rectified the problem, the vehicle in question occurred the same problem. Thereafter, the complainant had taken the vehicle to the other agency of Op No. 2 namely M/s Auto World Service Centre at Ambala Cantt. expecting that they will properly look after the defect and rectified the same and on this, after taking all the measures they said that the fault had been rectified but when there was a rain, the same problem continued with the vehicle. Further submitted that on 08.09.2011, there was a rain and on that date also the vehicle stopped on the way in rain and did not start. Further submitted that on 03.10.2011, the complainant had given the bike for third servicing to the OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 kept the vehicle for two days and given the delivery on 07.10.2011 and at the time of delivery there was a problem with the chain etc. and handle was not in a proper condition and inspite of retaining vehicle for two days the problem was also not rectified. Further submitted that the vehicle did not function in a rain and in the rain, the complainant had to suffer a lot and he was harassed mentally as well as physically due to this problem he even could not reach the office in time and being in a defense personnel he had to suffer a lot, as escaping duties is not allowed at any costs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No. 1 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the said motor cycle was sold from the Op No. 1 and the said vehicle comes with a warranty of 24 months from the date of sale; or un-till the vehicles has driven for 32,000/-k.ms, which ever event occurs first, during the period, the Op No. 2 warrants to replace or repair at its authorized workshop free of charge, if such part or parts there of as may be found on examination, to have manufacturing defect. Further submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of OP No. 1 on 03.07.2011, 28.05.2011 and 10.09.2011, there was no major defect in the vehicle.

                   OP No. 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting that Op No. 2 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Honda Motor Co. ltd. Japan and producing world class consumer products including and not limited to two wheelers and it products are not only worldwide popular but have set an unbeatable quality standard for rest of its competitioners. It is inter alia manufacturing “CB Unicorn”, a highly refined motorcycle in its class and the OP No. 1 and 3 are the authorized dealer of OP No. 2 for sale of the products manufactured by OP No. 2 and after-sales services to its customers. Further submitted that two-wheelers being manufactured by OP No. 2 are world–class two-wheelers and are being manufactured with 100% technological support from Honda Motor Co. ltd. Japan. Honda has its operations globally with a very strong brand image and high level of quality and efficiency. Thus the products of the OP No. 2 are of world-class quality with a very effective and efficient after sales service support spread throughout the country. As a level of standard and quality Honda believes in principally following a set practice of providing high class products to its customers. The authorized service centers of the OP No.2  have to meet the quality of the service standards prescribed by OP NO. 2 from time to time and the product in dispute is a motorcycle, which was sold under the brand name “CB Unicorn” on 29.04.2011 by OP NO.1.

                   OP No. 3 also appeared and filed written statement submitting that the vehicle was brought to the service centre of Op No. 3, the same        was handled satisfactorily and the complainant did not raise any issued with the answering Ops. the complainant brought his vehicle to the work shop of OP No. 3 on 30.09.2011, 08.09.2011 and 17.12.2011 and there was no major defect in the vehicle and only minor problems were brought to the notice attending mechanic and the same were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant at the time of taking the delivery has not any issue regarding any defect in the said vehicle.

 

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-11 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops has also tendered affidavit as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a C.B. UNICORN bearing registration No. HR-01A-3243 from the OP No.2 vide in voice No. IIIN00141 dated 29.04.2011 in sum of Rs. 61143/- Annexure C-1 with warranty of two years. The vehicle in question started giving problems from its very beginning i.e. vehicle cut off automatically in rain.

                   On the other hand, the OP has placed on record the job cards of various dated 30.09.2011, 08.09.2011 and 17.12.2014 Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-5 from which it reveal that all problems occurred as mentioned above were rectified by the OPs. Counsel for OPs has drawn our attention that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence whether the vehicle in question has any manufacture defect. To prove the manufacture defect in motorcycle, the complainant has to file the application under Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act to this Forum which is relevant to verify the manufacture defect. As per Section 13(1) (c) says  that “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which conanot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”

                   In the present case, the complainant failed to file any application under the above provision nor he filed any report of private expert to prove the motorcycle in question is having any manufacture defect. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. File after due compliance be consigned to record room. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :22.02.2017                                               Sd/-

                                                                             (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                    Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member