| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/394/12 Date of Institution:- 10.10.2012 Order Reserved on:- 12.02.2024 Date of Decision:- 30.05.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: VarunKapur Address: FD-45, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi .….. Complainant VERSUS - Mr.SandeepKaushik (Owner)
M/s ShubanSai Honda RZ-4, K. No.-298, Sudan Garden RoshanPura, Najafgarh, New Delhi – 110043 - M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Manager Plot No.1 Sector-3, IMT Manesar, Dist: Gurgaon, Haryana - 122020 .…..Opposite Parties Per Dr.HarshaliKaur, Member - The complainant purchased a motorbike from OP-2, chassis No. ME4MC421DB8000322, engine No. MC42E0000619 manufactured by OP 2. The complainant paid for the motorcycle in cash and via loan amount (Enclosure 1).
- On 29.05.2011, the complainant took his motorcycle to OP-1, the authorized service centre of OP-2. He alleges that during the first service, the oil filter of his motorcycle was replaced with a duplicate oil filter as the original Honda oil filter was unavailable. It is the complainant's case that due to this duplicate part, the engine of the complainant's bike was damaged, which caused the motorcycle to stop functioning smoothly and resulted in problems like strange noise, driving problems, sudden stoppage, engine oil leakage, bad pickup, etc. as stated by the complainant in his complaint.
- The complainant reported the above complaints to OP-1, and his motorbike was taken to the service centre. At the service centre, the OP-1 technicians replaced the duplicate filter with the original filter, but the complainant's motorcycle once again was unable to function on the road after being driven only a few km, causing the complainant mental agony. The complainant immediately informed the OPs regarding the motorbike failure. On the advice of OP-2, his defective bike was once again handed over to OP-1 on 08.07.2011. The engine of his motorbike was properly checked, and several parts of the engine were repaired.
- Dissatisfied with the repeated repair of his new motorcycle within 3 months, the complainant requested OP-2 for the replacement of his motorbike, which became defective because of the duplicate part fitted by OP-1 during the first service. The complainant sent many complaints made phone calls, reminders, and emails. Healso visited the OP-2 office personally on 29.02.2012 to replace his motorbike.
- On 02.03.2012, the complainant and OP-2 had a meeting wherein the complainant again requested for the replacement of his motorbike but OP-2 offered only to provide full repair in light of the company policy.
- The complainant alleges that on 13.03.2012, OP-2 and the complainant mutually agreed to replace the old engine with a new one and also agreed to replace some other defective parts. On 05.04.2012, the complainant's bike was repaired and handed over to him. But when he took the bike on the road on 06.04.2012, i.e., the very next day, the rear wheel got jammed, causing the complainant great difficulty on the highway.
- The complainant informed the OPs, and OP-1 fixed the issue on 07.04.2012. But on 09.04.2012, the complainant's bike again broke down and did not start. The complainant managed to somehow get the bike back home, which caused him severe mental agony and panic. When the complainant again reported the same to the OPs, OP-1 asked the complainant to recharge his battery locally. However, the complainant's motorcycledid not start. OP-1 took the battery to his service centre on 11.04.2012 and installedit again on12.04.2012. But all the efforts of the complainant were to no avail, as his motorbike did not start,and has been lying dead with the complainant. The complainant alleges that OP-1 and 2 did not attend to the complainant's call after 09.04.2012.
- Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. He seeks directions to the OPs to refund the cost of his motorbike, i.e., Rs. 1,57,327/- along with interest @ 20% to also pay off the loan or alternatively to replace his old bike with a new one, Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and financial loss faced by him and a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards litigation costs.
- On notice, the OPs filed their reply jointly, stating therein that as per the terms of warranty, the complainant's vehicle was well attended by the OP engineers to the complainant's satisfaction free of cost. It is only the complainant's apprehension that a duplicate filter was replaced instead of an original filter, as the complainant has not mentioned any date or time of the alleged allegation.
- Further, the complainant has run his vehicle for more than 15000 Kms and has not reported any issue since 12.04.2012, which would not have been possible had there been a defect in the complainant's bike. The complainant was fully satisfied after checking his vehicle. The OP admitted that the engine was replaced along with other parts free of cost (FOC), denying all other averments made by the complainant and having filed the present fictitious complaint against the OP, which deserves to be dismissed.
- The OP further states that the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to substantiate his allegations that his motorbike had manufacturing defects.
- The complainant filed his rejoinder and affidavit in evidence, proving on record all the documents annexed by him with his complaint. The OPs filed the affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Dahiya, Service Manager for the OPs, echoing the statements made in the reply filed by the OPs.
- Written arguments were filed by the contesting parties, and we have heard the Ld. Counsel of the complainant. Ld. Proxy Counsel of the OPs sought an adjournment to address oral final arguments at a later date, due to which liberty was given to the OPs to address final oral arguments within 15 days, and the order was reserved.
- We have considered the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have carefully perused the documents annexed by the contesting parties.
- We find that the complainant purchased a motorcycle from OP 2 on 27.04.2011. He paid the total consideration amount of Rs. 1,56,927/- for his motorbike. The complainant alleged that from the first service for his motorcycle after a month, i.e., on 29.05.2011, the oil filter was replaced with a non-stamped, locally packed oil filter. The complainant alleges that due to this replacement by a locally sourced part, his motorbike was not performing well, which damaged his engine, causing several problems, such as strange noise, driving problems, sudden stoppage, engine oil leakage, bad pickup, etc.
- It is stated by the complainant that after purchasing the bike on 24.12.2011, he made several complaints on 08.07.2011, 29.02.2012, 02.03.2012, 13.03.2012, 05.04.2012, 06.04.2012, 07.04.2012, 09.04.2012, 11.04.2012, 12.04.2012 and also was unable to use his defective motorbikeafter that.
- Further, after a meeting with OP-1 and 2 on 13.03.2012, it was mutually agreed that the engine of the complainant's bike would be replaced along with other defective parts. This fact has been admitted to by the OPs as well.
- The complainant's bike was taken to OP-1 on 05.04.2012 and the entire engine was replaced along with other parts. The repaired bike was handed to the complainant. The complainant states that he again faced a stalling problem with the rear wheels, which the OP fixed immediately, but his motorbike again broke down on 09.04.2012, and the battery of his bike also got discharged, which was fixed by OP 1. The complainant states that his motorcycle did not start thereafter and has been non-functional ever since.
- The OP admits to replacing the complainant's engine of the bike; however, deny all other allegations, stating that as per the warranty of the vehicle, the OP staff attended to the complainant and his vehicle to his complete satisfaction, and since the complainant has enjoyed the bike, riding it for 15000 Kms till 12.04.2012, it is unlikely that the motorbike had any defect.
- Further, the OP states that as per the warranty policy of the OP, they replaced some parts of the vehicle FOCto the complete satisfaction of the complainant, and hence, there is no defect in the vehicle in question as the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after due service/repair. The OP also alleged that the complainant has not filed any expert evidence or a report to allege a manufacturing defect.
- In our considered view, the clear admission of the OP that the complainant's motorcycle's engine was replaced and other parts also changed FOC, as mentioned in clause 3.10 of their amended written statement, is enough toclarify that there wereundoubtedly certain defects in the complainant's bike which he purchased on 27.04.2011 duewhich the OPreplaced the engine and other parts free of cost on 05.04.2012, i.e., within a year of purchase of the motorbike. This act of the OPs is sufficient to prove without a doubt that the complainant's bike had some defect which the OPs could not repair to his satisfaction despite repeatedly submitting the bike at OP-1, the service centre.
- In our view, the complainant, who had purchased a new bike, had to take it repeatedly to OP-1 for repair, which would have undoubtedly caused him mental agony and harassment. The OP's admission regarding the replacement of the engine of the complainant's motorbike makes it amply clear and enough to prove that no expert opinion is required to clarify the fact the complainant was facing issues with his motorbike due to which the OPs replaced his complete engine in onlyone year of purchase, and that too free of cost.
- Therefore, allowing the complainant, we direct the OPs to jointly and severally pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, inclusive of litigation cost for the mental agony and physical harassment he would have undoubtedly faced.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 30.05.2024.
| |
