SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         This complaint  has been filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for getting an order directing opposite party to  repair or replace the  Multimedia  Navigation system without any cost together with compensation for the mental agony  and to pay litigation cost.

   Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The  complainant is the owner in possession of  a 2017 model Honda city car bearing Reg. No.KL 59-R-6363. On 23/7/2021 when the complainant has parked his car, a two wheeler came and hit the back door on the right side of his car and it was taken to the  service centre of the OP on 26/7/2021 and entrusted for repair and  after repair  on 9/8/2021, when he taken back the vehicle, he noticed that the  display of the multimedia navigation system was not working.  According to the complainant there was no complaint to the system when he was entrusting the car for repair.  Complainant immediately  informed the matter  to the staff of OP and after inspecting the system he told that they will repair  the system and asked him to bring the car after two days. The complainant waited for the response of the OP for one week, there was no response, the complainant  again contacted  the staff of the OP  and then they told him that  they didn’t get any reply from   their main office .  But even after sending notice OP was not  ready to replace it without cost.  OP demanded the price of the system Rs.40,000/- by the complainant.  According to the complainant since the system became damaged, from the hands of the staff of OP while doing the accidental repair work, OP ought to have replaced it without any cost.  Hence the complaint.

        After receiving notice OP entered appearance  and filed version . OP admits  that the complainant had brought Honda city car bearing Reg. No.KL 59-R-6363 to his service centre on 23/7/2021 .  The complainant had approached the OP  with accidental damages to his  vehicle and the repair needed was on the back door of  right side of the car and the said damages were repaired  and  rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant  and was returned to the complainant on 9/8/2021.  The OP states that for  repairing  the damages occurred to the car,  there was no need for the staff of the OP to handle  the multimedia  navigation  system, as there was no relation  between  the right side back door damage and the said multimedia navigation system.  There was no need for the staff of  the OP to open the interior  parts, etc of the vehicle for repairing  the  said damages, as the damage is dealt by the  body shop department, who does not even  check the interior of the vehicle in any manner. OP further stated that the complainant’s vehicle’s warranty had already expired  in 2020, hence there exist no warranty on the multimedia navigation system at the time of bringing the vehicle  to  the OP’s service centre.  Therefore  the OP is not liable to replace or repair the system free of cost.  There was no  deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice from the  part of  OP, Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

    Both parties led evidence.  Complainant has filed chief affidavit and documents.  He has been examined as PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1&A2.  Service manager of OP filed chief affidavit and 5 documents.  He was examined as DW1 and documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.  Both witness were subjected to cross-examination for the rival parties.  After that the learned counsel of OP filed written argument note.

   The undisputed facts in this case are  that the  complainant is the owner in possession of  a 2017 model Honda city car bearing Reg. No.KL 59-R-6363.  Further the car met with an accident on 23/7/2021 and it was taken to the  service centre of the OP on 26/7/2021 and entrusted for repair.

     Complainant alleged that when he was taking back  the car from the service centre of the OP he noticed that the display of the  multimedia navigation system was not working.  According to the complainant there was no complaint to the system when he was entrusting the car for repair.  Complainant further alleged that though the staff of OP agreed to replace it after getting confirmation from the company.  But even after sending notice OP was not  ready to replace it without cost.  OP demanded the price of the system Rs.40,000/- by the complainant.  According to the complainant since the system became damaged, from the hands of the staff of OP while doing the accidental repair work, OP ought to have replaced it without any cost.

      OP contended that  the complainant had approached the OP  with accidental damages to his  vehicle and the repair needed was on the back door of  right side of the car and the said damages were repaired  and  rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant  and was returned to the complainant on 9/8/2021.  The OP states that for  repairing  the damages occurred to the car,  there was no need for the staff of the OP to handle  the multimedia  navigation  system, as there was no relation  between  the right side back door damage and the said multimedia navigation system.  There was no need for the staff of  the OP to open the interior  parts, etc of the vehicle for repairing  the  said damages, as the damage is dealt by the  body shop department, who does not even  check the interior of the vehicle in any manner.

    OP has produced Exts.B1&B2  for substantiating his contention.  Ext.B1 dtd.26/7/2021 is the Manual repair order and owner’s manual of the vehicle to prove his contention.  It is the job card to note the  repair work and condition of the vehicle before doing the repair work.  On perusal of Ext.B1, it is seen that CASKA/AVN Card/SD card, there is a cross mark, which indicates that the  AVN Card ( Audio Video Navigation card)  , which is the multimedia Navigation system is checked and reported to  be not working when the vehicle was entrusted for repair on 26/7/2021.  The AVN card’s definition  and the warranty details are explained in detail in the owner’s Manual produced from the side of OP(Ext.B2).

    From Ext.B1 document, it is evident  that the multimedia navigation system was not working on functioning when the vehicle was brought to the service centre of the OP.  From Ext.B2(a) the warranty is valid for 36 months from the date of first sale of new car.  From Ext.B2(a) the warranty of the  car is expired, when it was entrusted to  OP for repair work.

   Further OP submits that the complaint  of the  multimedia navigation system has not been brought or produced before the  commission, nor an expert had been appointed  to see, as to check  the navigation system  was working or not working.  So the  complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the complaint.

   Here the complainant has not proved his allegations in the complaint, through material evidence or through expert opinion.

    In the result  complaint  fails and hence it is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

Exts;

A1- Ta x invoice

A2-copy of lawyer notice

B1- Manual repair order

B2&B2(a)- owner’s manual & warranty booklet

B3- Data based extract

B4- reply notice

B5- acknowledgment  card

PW1-Murali.M.V-complainant

DW1-Aravind Chandran-OP
Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                     MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                               Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR