CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.178/2009
SMT. ADARSH KHANNA
W/O SHRI A.K. KHANNA
R/O C-12 NIZAMUDDIN(WEST)
NEW DELHI-110013
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
1. M/S SOUTHEND HONDA
(SAKET MOTORS PVT. LTD.)
PLOT NO.71, BLOCK B-2,
MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BADARPUR, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044
2. HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD.,
PLOT NO.A-1, SECTOR 40/41
SURAJPUR-KASNA ROAD,
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA
DISTT. GOUTAM BUDH NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH-201306
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:02.07.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
OP-1 is the authorized dealer of OP-2, the manufacturer of the car in question. Complainant purchased a Honda Civic car on 06.9.2006 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.11,24,128/-. The grievance of the complainant is that within 30 days from the purchase of the said car, the following defects were observed in the car:-
- Mal-functioning of braking system
- Poor air conditioning
- Un-identified sound in the car
- There is undue wearing of the tyres also as a result of poor suspension system
The complainant has brought into the notice of the OP about the above said defects repeatedly and every time the complainant was falsely assured that the defects would be removed and the vehicle would give no trouble at all in the future. Complainant has given the vehicle for service on 09.10.2006, 23.8.2007, 27.8.2007, 20.8.2008 and 21.8.2008. The following payments are paid towards service charges and repair of the vehicle:-
Dt. 09.10.2006 - Nil
Dt. 23.08.2007 - Rs.789/-
Dt. 20.08.2008 - Rs.3330/-
Dt. 21.08.2008 - Rs.112/-
Despite several verbal requests as well as in writing by the complainant, the manufacturing defect in the braking system has not been removed till the filing of this complaint. The complainant has not been able to ply the vehicle and for that reason till filing of the complaint, the vehicle has only covered 20,600 Kms. It is stated that in the city like Delhi it is difficult to drive the vehicle without having proper braking system. It is further stated that the defects with regard to the mal-functioning of brake system is a common defect in Honda Civic 1.8 S car. The defect is global as reported in Hindustan Times dated 16.9.2007 wherein it is confirmed that the Honda Civic car having manufacturing defect in wheel bearing, seal as well as in its braking system manufactured during 24.3.2005 and 08.2.2007 has been recalled by OP-2.
It is stated that OP-2 has been maintaining double standard with regard to car sold in India. It is reported in Hindustan Times newspaper dated 16.9.2007 that OP-2 recalled 182756 nos. of Honda Civic cars globally but so far the Indian customers are being forced to use the said defective vehicle. Such act of OP-2 amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant has served OP with legal notice dated 04.3.2008 through Regd. A.D. and U.P.C. and said notice was received by OP and no reply has been received by complainant till the date of filing of this complaint. OP failed to comply with the aforesaid notice. Therefore complainant was left with no alternative or efficacious remedy except to approach this Forum.
Complainant has prayed that OP be directed to replace the vehicle with a new one or to return the cost of vehicle with interest alongwith refund of service charges with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs for mental harassment and cost of legal proceedings.
OP-1 in written arguments took the plea that the present complaint is grossly misconceived and abuse of process of law. There is no deficiency on the part of OP-1. The vehicle in question has travelled more than 20600 Kms over a period of 1½ years and is being continuously used by the complainant for more than 2 years and does not suffer from any defect whatsoever as stated in the complaint. The vehicle in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. It is only the normal wear and tear which requires service regularly. It is further stated that it is important to mention that alleged problem of braking system and wearing of tyres depends upon the driving condition and mannerism in which vehicle is driven. In case the vehicle is driven improperly, it will result in damage of various parts of the vehicle. No written complaint has ever been made by the complainant. Only a legal notice was sent and same was duly replied on 10.4.2008. The vehicle has already covered 20600 Kms over a period of approximately 1½ years and this mileage is a mileage for an average car user over this period and cannot be considered to be a low mileage. It is further stated that a bare perusal of invoice annexed with the complaint will demonstrate that the complainant never approached OP except when the car was otherwise due for routine service. The last visit of the vehicle to OP workshop was admittedly on 20.8.2008 when the car had done 16290 Kms for the purpose of routine servicing. Admittedly the car thereafter run for a large number of Kms as according to complainant herself 20600 Kms. The advertisement referred to in the complaint is not related to Honda Civic manufactured in India and necessary clarification in this regard was issued by the manufacturers. It is stated that models manufactured in different countries are country specific and not model specific. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service.
Initially only OP-1 was made party and manufacturer OP-2 was made party subsequently by amending the complaint. Identical stand has been taken by OP-2 in the written arguments.
We have heard Ld. Counsels for complainant and OP-1 and gone through the written arguments of the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the car was purchased from OP-1 on 06.9.2006. The main grievance of the complainant is that within 30 days from the purchase of the car the following defects were observed in the car:-
- Mal-functioning of braking system
- Poor air conditioning
- Un-identified sound in the car
- There is undue wearing of the tyres also as a result of poor suspension system
OP-1 in the written arguments clearly stated that from the job card it is evident that the vehicle was sent for routine service and not for the defects as mentioned in the complaint. It is denied that any of the defects as stated exist in the vehicle. As per complainant he has come to know about the aforesaid defects in the month of October 2006. There is nothing on the record that the complainant has ever pointed out about the mal functioning of the braking system or unidentified sound in the car. The defects were pointed out for the first time by way of legal notice dated 04.3.2008. OP-1 in para-1 of the WS has clearly stated that the said legal notice wad duly replied vide letter dated 10.4.2008. In the rejoinder in reply to para 4 this fact is not disputed. Complainant in his affidavit has not stated that he has not received any reply to the legal notice. The copy of the reply to legal notice is placed on the record wherein it is specifically stated that on the receipt of the legal notice the official of OP-1 has spoken to complainant on 10.3.2008 regarding her concern of brake system and AC system and the appointment was fixed for 11.3.2008 and the car was inspected in her presence by the Area Manager of OP-2. After test drive, brake stop switch assy. was replaced under warranty and on inspection of AC operation, it was observed that a part (Thermister) needs replacement. Since the required part was not available at that point of time, they had assured that on receipt of the part the car will be called accordingly. The said part was received on 29.3.2008 and subsequently OP-2 had called and requested complainant to make the car available but till 10.4.2008 the car was not made available.
The most important part is that lastly the car was sent for service on 20.8.2008 and what was complained is the unidentified noise in car and poor air conditioning and at that time the car has travelled 20600 Kms. It is nowhere pointed out in the Job Card that there was any problem with the braking system. The said defects were cured. However when the person sent to deliver the car to complainant on 21.8.2008 it was pointed out that there was defect in the alignment. The car was moving towards right side on driving even at the speed of 20 Kms and there was noise in the steering wheel and headlight was not working and the car was to be taken to the service station once more. Till 21.8.2008 there is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any manufacturing defect in the car. The car was purchased on 06.9.2006. As per the complainant the defect was noticed within 30 days but the car was regularly sent for routine servicing and there is not even a single document to suggest that there was any manufacturing defect. On 21.8.2008 i.e. almost 2 years the car has travelled more than 20,000 Kms meaning thereby that car has covered 10,000 Kms per year i.e. average mileage for a vehicle. So far as recall of the Honda Civic car in the other countries are concerned, there is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any defect in manufacturing in India. Not a single car has been recalled in India for manufacturing defect. At the time of argument complainant has placed on record copy of newspaper Hindustan Times dated 16.5.2015 wherein it is stated that Honda in India is recalling 11,805 units of Accord, 575 units CR-V and one unit of Civic Sedan manufactured between 2003 and 2007 to replace a faulty part concerning inflators in the passenger and driver side airbags. Only one car of Honda Civic was recalled. No car has been recalled for the defects reported in the complainant.
It was for the complainant to prove that the defect detailed in the complaint were manufacturing defect. Complainant has failed to point out any manufacturing defect as the car covered 20600 Kms before August 2008 and this complaint was filed on 12.3.2009 meaning thereby that the car covered more distance by that time. The last problem noticed in the delivery report dated 21.8.2008 were relating to some alignment and noise in the steer wheel. Nothing prevented the complainant to send the car to the service station for rectification of those defects. The complaint has not sent the car to the OP for rectifying of these defects. Nevertheless these two defects were found on 21.8.2008 when the employee of OP-1 went to deliver the car after service to the complainant and that amounts to deficiency in service and the interest of justice will suffice if the complainant is paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
