IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Date of filing : 25.01.2016
Date of Order : 17.12.2020
PRESENT:
Shri. V.S.Manulal President-in-charge
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member.
CC.No.47/2016
Between
Dr. Reethamma Emmanuel, W/o.Mr.Emmanuel Joseph, 26/704, Pottanani House, Konthuruthy Road, Thevara P.O., Kochi-682 013 | :: | Complainant (party-in-person) |
And |
Service Manager, Penninsular Honda, Kundannur, Kochi
| :: | Opposite parties (op. 1 rep. by Adv.Jolly John, Palathinkal, Chathamma, Panangad P.O., Ernakulam) |
Mr.Katusushi Inove, CEO, Honda Cars India ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Noida-203 207
| :: | (o.p. 2 rep. by Adv.Ninan & Mathew, Second Floor, 42/1686, D20, Empire building, High Court East End, Kochi-18) |
O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant states that she had purchased a Honda Brio car with Registration No. KL07 BX 3261 from the 1st opposite party on 10.05.2013. The vehicle was suffered a major mishap, while running on 30.12.2015 and was taken into the service station on the same day. The opposite party service centre informed the complainant that the nuts and bolts attached with the mounting of the engine was broken which is very unusual thing happened to the car. As said by the dealer the part was not in store with the service station and there is delay in procurement of the part. It took more than 15 days to get the car back from the service centre. The complainant stated that in her view the mishap happened only because of some manufacturing defect with the Honda car which the opposite party delivered to her. The nuts and bolts supporting the engine is a vital part of the car and must not suffer such a break down. The complainant stated that this mishap happened within a period of normal servicing of the car after 45,000 km and not due to any accident. The complainant is a customer and she requested the dealer to provide a car for her day to day affairs and office use but which was not been provided by the opposite party. Thus, the complainant rented a car/borrowed a car to get her work done since the complainant is working at a place about 60 km away from her house. The complainant also stated that an international conference was going on in her college on those days and she was in charge of its arrangements and therefore she had to put into great trouble, inconvenience, mental agony and also financial burden to meet the requirements for conveyance. It is also stated that the complainant had used the car only on national highways and in the city roads in Cochin and there is no harsh driving from her side and thus there is no chance for the internal failure of the nuts and bolts in the car. Therefore, the complainant apprehended that it was only due to the manufacturing defect of the car the mounting of the engine of the car was broken was broken. Hence the complainant demanded to get an expenses of Rs.1,300/- per day for 15 days as compensation from the opposite party and also sought for an amount of Rs.1038/- as repair charges and thus total amount of Rs.20,538/- as reliefs for the mental agony and sufferings sustained by the complainant.
2) Notices were served to the opposite parties 1 and 2 from this Commission and the opposite parties appeared and filed their version in response to the notices received by them.
3) Version filed by the 1st opposite party
The 1st opposite party stated in their version that the allegations of the complainant is absolutely false and frivolous. The opposite party returned the vehicle without curing the defect after the normal service for 45,000 km is false because delay in returning the vehicle after curing the defect was due to the delay caused in procuring the defective part. Since the defect was caused to engine foundation bolt, which was a slow moving part and the same was not available at the ware houses and hence the opposite party had no other source to get it except from the vendor. It is contended that the vehicle had not suffered any inherent manufacturing defect and the defects occurred in the vehicle was due to improper handling of the vehicle by the complainant. The 1st opposite party also submitted that the vehicle of the complainant had met with accidents on several times after the purchase of the vehicle. It is evident from the tax invoice submitted by the complainant. The defect caused to the engine foundation bolt was the consequential impact of repeated accidents caused to the vehicle. The minor scratch might have developed due to repeated accidents on account of the careless driving of the complainant. The opposite party argued in their version that the allegation of manufacturing defect of the vehicle cannot be taken as truth with a mere statement but it is required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence. Further, the opposite party also stated that the Hon’ble National Commission had held that the defects as alleged in the complaint are to be thoroughly referred to and also to be inspected by an automobile expert. It is submitted by the opposite party to accept their version and dismiss the complaint with costs.
4) Version filed by the 2nd opposite party.
In the version filed by the 2nd opposite party it is stated that complainant is deliberately trying to distort the facts of the case to suit her own convenience to mislead the Hon’ble Commission. The opposite party had duly repaired the car and handed over the car to the complainant. The allegations regarding the manufacturing defect raised by the complainant is false since the complainant had brought the car in the year 2013 and had used the same regularly for almost 2 yrs. It is also alleged by the opposite party that the complainant stated in her complaint that her working place is 60 kms away from her home, which proves that the complainant had fully used the car for the last 2 years. It is also stated that if there is any manufacturing defect in the car which is to be noticed within a few days from the date of its purchase, but, even after using the car for 2 years, the complainant never alleged a single complaint with respect to the manufacturing defect of the car. It is also stated that the Bolt Stud of the car used by the complainant is a wear and tear part in nature and it is not covered under the extended warranty. The 2nd opposite party also stated in their version that they are not a necessary party in this case. Therefore, the opposite parties alleged that the complainant had miserably failed to establish any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service from the opposite party. Therefore the 2nd opposite party sought for the dismissal of this complaint.
5) Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidences produced by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A8. No oral or documentary evidences adduced by the opposite parties.
6) The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:
(i) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible to get any compensation from the opposite parties?
(iii) Relief and costs?
7) Issue No. (i)
On verification of the evidences produced by the complainant and the opposite parties, it is seen that the vehicle owned by the complainant had met with a mishap on 30.12.2015 and had entrusted the vehicle with the 1st opposite party on the same day. Exbt.A1 is the registration certificate of the car showing that the registered owner of the vehicle is the complainant herself and the registration No. given to the car is KL-07 BX 3261. Exbt.A2 is an Invoice dated 16.01.2016 issued by the 1st opposite party showing that the nuts and bolts attached with the mounting of the engine of the car was broken and is replaced. Exbt.A3 is the Tax invoice dated 16.12.2015 evidencing the service done on the vehicle at 45,000 kms. Exbt.A4 is the e-mails and other communications sent by the complainant to the customer Relations and service Manager of the 1st opposite party. Exbt.A5 is the e-mail communication between the complainant and the opposite party in which the opposite party had stated that the engine foundation bolts and nuts is a slow moving part and hence it is not available which resulted in long delay for repairing the car. Exbt.A7 is a letter of communication regarding the warranty of the car. Exbt. A8 is a registration certificate of the newly purchased Honda Jazz car bearing No.KL-07-CG-4398 by the complainant from the 1st opposite party. On verification of the documents and records it is seen that the complainant had failed to produce a report of examination of the vehicle by an expert commissioner. In the above case, the complainant alleged manufacturing defects of the disputed vehicle. The complainant mainly argued that the occurrence of the defects in the disputed vehicle is due to its manufacturing defects. But, the complainant had not produced any evidence to prove her allegations as true and correct. The complainant vehemently argued that the vehicle had been suffering from manufacturing defects. Even then, the complainant did not take any steps to prove her case by getting appointment of an Expert Commissioner and to furnish an expert’s report. It is most essential to know for reaching into a conclusion of the case whether the nuts and bolts mounting in the engine was got broken due to the inherent manufacturing defect or otherwise as alleged by the complainant.
Eventhough, the case being so, the complainant’s grievances are most projected and still standing above any technical observations since the defect had not happened due to any accident in the instant case but the vehicle had stopped abruptly while it was running. The opposite party had not made any efforts to substantiate that the defect in the instant case has occurred in the vehicle due to the fault of the complainant. The opposite parties are also duty bound to prove that the alleged defect had occurred in the vehicle was due to some negligent acts from the part of the complainant. But in the instant case, the opposite parties had utterly failed to prove or to substantiate that the defect had caused from the part of the complainant. The complainant had made several communications on different dates with the opposite party which is being evidenced from the bunch of copies of email communications. In none of the reply furnished by the opposite party there is any mention regarding the occurrence of defects but instead the opposite party had on all occasions are offerings and intimating their inconvenience to carryout the work in time in their replies and from the contents of the messages it can be seen that the complainant had sustained to severe deficiency of service from the opposite parties. Since the opposite parties are offering excuses and not doing anything to cure the defects of the complainant’s car to repair urgently, and at this stage merely insisting on the expert’s report for proving the deficiency from the side of the complainant will be against the call of justice and we do believe that the complainant had to bear hardships due to the actions of the opposite party in keeping her car for weeks together just for replacing an engine bolt which the opposite parties are supposed to keep and provide and therefore we think that the complainant is liable to get compensation from the opposite party.
Considering the overall aspects of the case on examination of documents and records produced by both parties, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss, hardships, defects and therefore point No. (i) is found in favour of the complainant.
Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)
The complainant is therefore entitled to get compensation for the deficient service from the opposite parties. The complainant has spent her valuable time and money to contest this case before this Commission. Therefore, the complainant is found entitled to get the costs of this proceedings from the opposite parties.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows:
1) The opposite parties shall refund an amount of Rs.1,038/- to the complainant.
2) The opposite parties shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainants for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainants.
3) The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 17rd day of December 2020.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Sd/- V.S.Manulal, President-in-charge
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 | :: | Copy of certificate of registration |
Exbt. A2 | :: | Copy of tax invoice dated 16.01.2016 |
Exbt.A3 | :: | Copy of tax invoice |
Exbt. A4 | :: | Copy of e-mail communication |
Exbt.A5 | :: | Copy of e-mail communication |
Exbt.A6 | :: | Copy of e-mail communication |
Exbt.A7 | :: | Copy of Honda care certificate |
Exbt.A8 | :: | Copy of certificate of Registration |
Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil
Date of Despatch ::
By Hand ::
By Post ::