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/579/14
Date of Institution:- 19.09.2014
Order Reserved on:- 13.05.2024
Date of Decision:- 10.07.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Bharat Bhushan
F-13, First Floor,
Jangpura Extension
New Delhi – 110014 .….. Complainant
VERSUS
- Southend Honda
Saket Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Through General Manager
G.G.-12/12A, MGF Metropolitan Mall
Saket, New Delhi – 110017
- Courtesy Honda
Lally Automobiles (P) Ltd.
Through General Manager
D-196 & 160, OkhlaIndl.Aera,
Ph-I, New Delhi – 110020
- Honda Cars India Ltd.
Through General Manager
Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41
Surajpur Noida Industrial Development Area
Distt.GautamBudh Nagar
U.P. – 201306
- National Insurance Company Ltd.
Through General Manager
Div. Office X, Flat No.101-106 First Floor
N-1, BMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110001
.…..Opposite Parties
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 26.06.2014 he has booked Honda Amaze car with OP-1 by taking loan from HDFC bank. OP-4 has insured the car through Honda assure, the concern of OP-3 on extra premium by assuring him that in case of any unfortunate incident.The vehicle is fully insured and he has not to pay any amount. The OP-1 has not supplied any terms and conditions to him. The vehicle was purchased from OP-1 and get the insurance from HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. for the purpose that in case of any mishappening he will not have to pay the loan amount. The extended warranty was also given to him. The first 3 services were free but even then service station of OP-1 charged Rs.3204/- on 03.08.2014 during first service. The two years maintenance package has offered by OP-3 in the advertisement was not offered to OP-1. On 10.08.2014 at 2.00PM, he was on the ring road near his house. The car started emitting smoke upon which car was parked on the road side. The road side assistance of OP-3 was called which took the vehicle to OP-2 though he requested to take the vehicle to OP-1. On next day, it was checked from OP-1 and came to know that vehicle is not with OP-1. On 13.08.2014, he checked with OP-2 about the car. OP-2 has demanded Rs.2000/- as estimation cost. The car was under zero depreciation policy and called helpline numbers of OP-1 to 3 but in vain. On 15.08.2014, the representative of OP-2 called him and told that engine has been damaged due to water and approximate cost of repair is Rs.2 lakh. The car was under warranty. He has never driven the car in any abnormal condition or in flooded water. He came to know through internet that he has faced the problem due to inherent fault in the Amaze Model. The vehicle is in the garage of OP-2. There is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
- The delay to file the WS on the part of OP-1 was not condoned and application for condonation of delay of OP-1 was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2016.
- OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte.
- The application of OP-4 for condonation of delay for filing the WS was dismissed vide order dated 29.02.2014.
- OP-3has filed the reply with the averments that there is no defect in the vehicle so no liability can be fastened upon OP-3. The damage in the vehicle was due to negligence on the part of the complainant. The car in question experienced severe problem in its engine due to hydro lockas it was driven in a deep water logged area. The technicians of OP-2 found traces of water in the engine. Hydro lock problem occurs when a liquid substance gets into the engine cylinder. The vehicle carries a warranty for 24 months. The owner’s manual provided to the complainant shows that vehicle should not be driven in a deep water. The complainant would have reported the issue to OP-1 and 2 in case there was any problem in the engine. The complainant has failed to show a particular kind of defect in the engine which comes within the ambit of manufacturing defect. There is no expert report on the record. The warranty obligation of OP-3 is to the extent of repair or replacement of the car parts which are defective. The relationship of OP-1 and 2 with OP-3 is of Principal to Principal basis. The complainant has not suffered any damage or monetary loss so question of compensation does not arise. The complainant has failed to show any deficiency of service on the part of OP-3. The warranty does not apply when the damage results from the operating method other than those indicated in the owner manual. The allegations are false and frivolous.
- Thecomplainant has filed their rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statement.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documentsEx.C1 to C8.
- The OP-3 has filed the affidavit ofDr.DiwakarJangid, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OP-3/1 to 4 though exhibits are not put on the documents.
- We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
- The entire material on the record shows that purchase of car in question by the complainant with extended warranty from OP-1 is not in dispute.
- The complainant has taken insurance of the car through Honda Amaze and insurance policy bearing no.HNC/00116522 dated 26.06.2014 was issued by OP-4.
- The evidence led by the complainant shows that on 10.08.2014 at 2.00 PM, he reached at JangpuraExtn., Ring Road, New Delhi. The smoke started coming out of the car upon whichhe stopped the car and called the road side assistance of OP-3. The road side assistance towed away the car to OP-2 instead of OP-1 as directed by him. The car is towed away as apparent from receipt bearing no.2210 dated 10.08.2014 issued by road side assistance.
- The evidence further shows that OP-2 has checked the vehicle and found that engine is not rotating due to hydro lock. The OP-2 has given the repair estimate of Rs.1,83,824/-. The estimate is placed on record.
- Ld. Counsel for the OP-3 contended that owner’s manual shows that vehicle should not be driven in water logged area. He further contended that complainant has driven the vehicle in the water logged area as a result liquid/water gets into the engine cylinder which not only locks the engine but also damages piston, crank shaft and cylinder etc. He further submitted that company is not liable if any damage occurs by violating the instructions given in owner’s manual though complainant has submitted that he has not driven vehicle in the water logged area and engine has seized due to manufacturing defect in the engine and OPs No.-1, 2 & 3 are liable to repair the same free of cost. He further submitted that he has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to OP-2 and bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh submitted by him in the Commission by the order of the Commission dated 21.10.2014.
- There is no evidence on record that complainant has driven the vehicle in water logged area. There is no evidence that water was logged at a place where the vehicle has stopped and engine was seized. This is a mere assumption on the part of OP-3. There are different ways by which liquid gets into the vehicle i.e. driving the vehicle through high water, vehicle modification, head gasket failure and fuelinjector leak. The plea of the OP-3 that presence of water in the engine was only by reason of driving the vehicle through high water does not inspire confidence.
- The vehicle in question was under warranty as well as under extended warranty. The vehicle was insured by OP-4 through Honda Amaze.
- There is no expert opinion on the record to show manufacturing defect in the engine or in the car. There are manyreasons by which water can get inside the engine. There is no evidence that water in the engine was as a result of the fault of the complainant. OP-2 has repaired the engine and charged Rs.1.5 lakh as submitted by the complainant. The manufacturer is under a duty to cure the defect in the vehicle as there is no evidence on the record that waterinside the engine was due to the negligence of the complainant or by virtue of not following the instruction given in the owner’s manual.
- The OP-3 is manufacturer of the car whereas OP-2 is the authorised service centreof OP-3. The vehicle is fully insured. The OP-2 should have raised the bill and claimed the repair charges from OP-3 instead of claiming the bill from the complainant as OP-3 is liable to cure the defect in the engine free of cost as vehicle in question was under warranty. We have drawn support fromNo.FA No.393/2017 titled as M/s Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vsMr.Balbir Singh and Anr.decided on 03.01.2024 by Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
- The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as repair charges to OP-2 and bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh was submitted in the Commission in terms of the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by this Commission on the application under section 13 (3) B of the Act.
- The claim of repair charges from the complainant by OP-2 instead of curing the defect free of cost tantamounts to deficiency in service.
- In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP-2 shall refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- to thecomplainant. The bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh filed by the complainant be released. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for mental harassment and agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses from OP-3. The OP-2 and 3 are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.
- 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 10.07.2024.
