Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chavan – President:
1. These two appeals are filed by the manufacturer and dealer of Honda Unicorn Motorcycle purchased by the Complainant on 15th April, 2008 for a sum of `60,877/-, against the order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Pune, whereby the District Forum directed to pay the cost of the vehicle of `60,877/- to the Complainant with interest @9% per annum from 15.04.2008 till the amount is repaid with compensation of `15,000/- and `3,000/- as costs.
2. The Complainant had purchased motorcycle bearing No.MH 12 EU 821 on 15.04.2008 from Appellant M/s. Kothari Wheels, the Dealer of the Appellant Honda Motorcycle & Scooter Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of `60,877/-.The Complainant found that the vehicle was defective and therefore, informed the Appellant dealer at the time of first service on 27th May, 2008. The defects which were found in the vehicle were that though the green light is on in neutral gear the vehicle remains in an active gear, the front shock observer headlight was not proper, front wheel was not properly balanced resulting in the vehicle tilting to the right, even at the speed of 40 the engine gave out whistling sound, while changing the gear from 4th to 3rd some sound of brushing of one part against other was heard, in the second gear the vehicle did not pick-up speed and it stops suddenly, the engine was misbalanced, the kick does not come to its place after starting the vehicle, the gears are not smooth, the silencer of the vehicle gives out blue smoke and oil. Since these defects were not removed even after second and third service and since the dealer did not provide with the job card, a registered notice was issued calling for refund of the entire amount or replacement of the vehicle.
3. Since this demand was not complied with the Complainant had filed the complaint.
4. The Appellants opposed this complaint by filing their responses and affidavits. They also produced job cards.
5. After hearing the parties, the Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and therefore, passed the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby the Appellants are before us.
6. We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the Appellants and the Complainant’s representative on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. We have gone through the material on record.
7. In this case though it was alleged that there is some manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the vehicle is stated to have run for a distance of about 50000 kilometers. It is also seen that the Complainant had taken the vehicle for repairs to one Mr.Damle, who seems to have long experience of repairing vehicle. Affidavit of Mr.Damle was also filed on behalf of the Complainant in the Forum. Mr. Damle had observed in his affidavit that according to his experience and understanding there was larger clearance than expected between the block piston and cylinder head. There was some manufacturing defect in the Fork T and Chasis of the vehicle. The gears were not free. In fact Mr.Damle had driven the vehicle for 500 kilometers when the reading of the meter was from 20530 to 21143 kilometers.
8. The Forum found that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and deficiency in service because defects were not removed after servicing. The Forum seems to have been influenced by the fact that the dealer had first stated to the Complainant that the job card of the vehicle was not available and had filed the job card later on in the Forum. It was also found by the Forum that there was no evidence about replacement of the parts.
9. We have carefully considered the arguments of the Complainant that there was any attempt to fabricate evidence by initially suppressing job cards and then finding them. We do not find any substance in this contention. Had the Appellants desired to fabricate job cards, the job cards which had filed would not have shown that the Complainant had pointed out defects in the vehicle. All the defects which are mentioned in the complaint are found recorded in the job cards. In the first job card dated 27th May, 2008, in fact the Complainant had certified that the work had been done to her satisfaction. In the second job card dated 18th August, 2008 again all the defects have been mentioned. In the third service on 31st August, 2008 the Complainant has mentioned that the vehicle was accepted subject to the trials. Had the Appellants wanted to concoct evidence they would not have produced the job cards which clearly refer to the complaints which the Complainant had made, as also the caveat with which Complainant received the vehicle.
10. The Complainant in person had also a grievance that the work was not carried out property on the basis of the actual work details which are given behind the job card on 31st August, 2008. He stated that the mechanic had requisitioned part no.13000-KSP-910 crank shaft which seems to have not been utilized. Again part 96100-62033-00 bearing, was shown to have been not utilized, as also a gasket. He submitted that if these parts were requisitioned, obviously there was need of replacement and not replacement of those parts would indicate a casual approach in attending to the complaints of Complainants.
11. As rightly pointed out by the Appellants the job cards would rather show an honest attempt to repair the vehicle. We also see that the parts may have been requisitioned because the mechanic may have felt that they needed replacement. They may not have been utilized by the mechanic after inspecting parts and finding that replacement was not necessary and therefore, the job card so mentions. This does not mean that the dealer or its service centre was negligent. The Ld.Counsel for the manufacturer pointed out that the Complainant was not bound to get his vehicle replaced only at the service centre of Appellant – Kothari Wheels. He was free to get the vehicle for serviced in any authorized service centre of the Honda Motors. He further submitted that Appellant did not bring the vehicle for further servicing and therefore, the defects may have remained in the vehicle. He pointed out that the object of free services is not just to oblige the customer by enabling the customer to avail free service but because these services are necessary to take care of normal wear and tear in the initial running of the vehicle. He therefore, submitted that the Complainant’s taking the vehicle to a private mechanic itself deprives the Complainant of any claim against the manufacturer or dealer under the terms of warranty.
12. We have carefully heard the contentions. In our view the Forum was thoroughly unjustified drawing the inference on the basis of production of a job cards before the Forum. The job cards as already indicated do not show that they were concocted to serve the purpose of the Appellants. In fact, they had mentioned all the complaints about the vehicle which Complainant has sought to make. Secondly, the very fact that the vehicle has run about 50000 kilometers, now clearly shows that there cannot be any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. If there were some defects to be rectified the Complainant ought to have availed all services of the manufacturer’s service centers rather than taking the vehicle to the private mechanic. Therefore, the Complainant’s claim to have the vehicle replaced, though he has been using the vehicle, was unjustified and the Forum should not have granted the same. In our view, there is no evidence of any manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service which had been established before the Forum. The Forum was not justified in ordering the repayment of price of the vehicle.
13. In view of this, we allow the appeals, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced on 13th December, 2013
