BEFORE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 838 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.01 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between
1. M/s Hero Honda Motors Limited
regd. Head Office at 34, Community Center
2. M/s Sri Lakshmi Motors
# 16-11-2/6/172,
Authorized agent
Appellants/opposite parties
Sri
Aged 28 years, R/o H.No.11-14-132,
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants M/
Counsel for the Respondent M/
QUORUM:
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order per ***
1. The respondent purchased on 25.12.2010 from the second appellant for consideration of `76,537/- which was assigned with registration number AP 29BK 8758. The first appellant is the manufacturer of the bike. The respondent complained of engine emitting unusual noise, break down of the engine during normal ride, short circuit of electricity, mudguard hitting the number plate, loss of and breaking of cowls of the vehicle during the normal ride and the appellants repaired the vehicle from time to time and charged the respondent for the replaced parts on the ground that the parts were not covered by warranty. Camshaft component,
2. The problems were posed again and again for which the appellants found fault with the respondent. The respondent had taken the vehicle to M/s Phoenix Motors after making enquiry with the second appellant on 9.12.2011 refused to undertake major repairs and issued job card as also requested the respondent to take back the vehicle.
3. The first appellant resisted the claim on the premise that the respondent had taken the vehicle for first service on 3.11.2010 and he reported minor problems in the job card. The second appellant collected amount for changing the oil. The respondent got the vehicle for the second service on 20.02.2011. As per the terms of warranty the bill will be issued for the parts need replacement due to wear and tear and there were no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. After the free service, the respondent neglected to go for service as prescribed for the vehicle and he got the vehicle fitted with extra electrical fitment against the terms of warranty which resulted damage to the electrical circuit which in turn formed the basic problem of the vehicle.
4. The appellants advised the respondent not to use extra electrical fitting to the vehicle and not to use the vehicle for racing and the complaint reported was the result of extensive use of the It is stated that the respondent had not approached the District Forum with clean hands. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The respondent in support of his claim has filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A32. On behalf of the appellants, the Service Engineer of the appellant no.1 filed his affidavit and the documents, ExB1 to B10.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that though there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the respondent visited the appellants for several times for small repairs or general service and lost his time and money and that there might be some problems still persisting in the vehicle which need be addressed by the appellants.
7. The opposite parties have filed appeal contending that the respondent has not filed of opinion of expert to prove that the vehicle was defective and that the District Forum has not considered the admission of the respondent in his written arguments and that the District Forum erred in directing the appellants to take back the vehicle and replace it with new vehicle though the respondent had not proved any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is contended that the respondent has been using the motor cycle without any interruption and that the award for compensation of `15,000/- is arbitrary when there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
8. The counsel for the appellants has filed written submissions.
9. The point for consideration is whether the vehicle purchased by the respondent is defective and if so to what relief the respondent is entitled
10. The respondent purchasing the motor cycle manufactured by the first appellant and sold by the second appellant on 25.12.20101 for consideration of `76,537/- . The respondent stated that since the date of purchase the vehicle posed some problem or other. The respondent has not specifically stated on which date and what problem the vehicle posed. ExA6 to A26, the job cards show the service carried out the parts replaced from 3.01.2011 till -08.2011 which read as under:
-----
11. The respondent in the notice dated 20.10.2011 stated the following problems the vehicle said to have
a) Emitting unusual sound from the engine during normal ride.
b) Breakdown of engine during normal ride
c) Automatic switching off the bike lights during normal ride
d) Short circuit of bulb during normal ride
e) Mudguard hitting the number plate and dome every time when disk brake applied during normal ride; and
f) Loss of paint at various parts of the body.
g) Automatically breaking of cowls of the vehicle during normal riding conditions.
12. The defects the vehicle suffered is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the notice and the respondent referred to them as manufacturing defects:
Camshaft component,
13. The second appellant has got issued reply to the notice of the respondent pointing out that the respondent violated the terms of the warranty and got fitted extra electrical fitment to the vehicle which is the root cause of the problems posed by the vehicle. In paragraph 5 of the reply the service rendered to the vehicle is stated as follows:
“As per the warranty policy the vehicle needs first free servicing between 750-1000 After the completion of free services the need to carry out the services in the interval of 2500 All these terms are mentioned in Owner’s manual improper service record voids the warranty coverage.
Now your carried out the service as below:
1. First Service on 3.01.2011 at 735 2. Second service on 23.01.2011 at 2415 3. Third Service 19.02.2011 at 4718 4. Forth service at 26.03.2011 at 7318 5. Fifth Service 17.04.11 at 9156 Thereafter the vehicle was reported on 5.09.2011 at 18,359 The usage of vehicle is very high from date of purchase 25.12.2011 to 05.09.2011 and your client has not carried out the service for almost 9000 14. In paragraphs 4 and 6 the violation of the terms of the warranty and advice rendered therefor is stated as follows:
4. As per company warranty policy any extra electrical fitment on vehicle warranty will be void. The said vehicle was fitted with extra electrical bulb (55/60 watts) which have resulted damages to electrical circuit, which caused to the basic problem for your clients vehicle, your client had admitted about the carrying out extra electrical fittings the same was intimated time and again to your client through emails which are self-explanatory may be your client might have not produced the same before you.
6. That apart our service people have categorically advised and requested your client to remove all the extra fittings more particularly high voltage bulbs which are capacity of 55/60 such huge capacity bulbs cannot bear by the said vehicle resulting in disturbing the wiring causing shot circuit etc., have explained all these to your client and also advised him not to use the said bike for bike racing as the said vehicle is not supported in bile racing purpose.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Commission in “Sri
16. where the motor cycle purchased by the complainant posed repeated problems such as noise while the vehicle is operated in second gear and generation of severe heat in the engine, silencer and brake pedal within 15 minutes of the vehicle put in motion. The service engineer conducted test drive after replacing spindle gear shifter, spring gear shit drum and compound It was found that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was held:
“Even in the case of manufacturing defect of a vehicle, the vehicle in In another case, the
In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgment of the
17. In “ of the order as follows:
“The first appellant during the first servicing of the vehicle replaced parts charging Rs.1079/- and waived the amount as goodwill gesture. The warranty terms mentioned in the manual cover certain parts of the vehicle subject to proper use and correct handling of the vehicle with exception to normal wear and tear of the components. The warranty will not apply in the following circumstances:
1. If all free services/paid services/oil top-ups are not availed from the authorized Hero Honda workshops. As per their recommended schedule.
2. If Hero Honda recommended engine oil SAE-10W 30 SJ Grade (JASO MA) is not used.
3. To normal wear and tear components including but not limited to) brake shows, clutch shoes, bulbs, electrical wiring, filter, spark plug, fasteners, shims, washer, oil seals, gaskets, rubber parts, bush rubber bellows, plastic parts breakage and wheel rim for misalignment bend.
4. If additional wheel(s) is are fitted and/or any other modification carried out/accessories fitted other than the ones recommended by Hero Honda
5. If Super Splendor motorcycle has been sued in any competitive events like races or rallies or for any commercial purposes as taxi etc.
6. To any damage on motorcycle’s painted surface cropping due to industrial pollution or other external factors.
7. For normal phenomenon like noise, vibration, oil seepage etc., which do not affect the performance of the 8. To any damage caused due to usage of improper oil/grease, non-genuine parts.
9. If any defect crops or repairs needed as a result
10. If any maintenance/repairs required due to bad road conditions or misuses of Super Splendor motorcycle.
11. If any defect crops or repairs needed as a result of Super Splendor Motorcycle meeting to some accident.
12. For consumables like oil, grease, gasket etc., to be used during free services and/or warranty repairs
13. To any part of Super Splendor motorcycle which has been tampered or got repaired at unauthorized outlet.
14. For Super Splendor motorcycle not used in accordance with the guidelines given in the owner’s manual.
16. In terms of “warranty” it is mandatory for the first respondent to avail all the free services as per the recommended schedule. Any defect observed in the motorcycle during the period of warranty and the part considered to be the cause of the defect, the second appellant’s obligation is restricted to repair or replace such part subject to the condition that such defect is not resulted due to improper driving or misuse of the vehicle”
18. In the case on hand, the respondent sought for replacement of the motor cycle and the District Forum has not found any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The appellants proceeded in the appeal on the premise that relief of replacement of the vehicle was allowed . Ground no.10 of the appeal reads as under:
“The learned District Forum has acted in violation of the doctrine of “natural justice and fair play” in passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2012 in directing the appellants to take back the vehicle and replace new vehicle to the respondent when there existed no evidence on record that the motor cycle sold to the respondent had any manufacturing defect without there being any basis or foundation for such order”.
19. The District Forum directed the appellants to check the motor cycle and attend to the problems without charging money from the respondent and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.15
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the relief of payment of compensation and costs of `15,000/-. Rest of the order is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.25.03.2013
కెఎంకె*
