SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OPs seeking to get an order directing OP to replace Honda Amaze car, vide No. KL 13 AG 8439 with new one of same model at free of cost or return an amount of rs.8,28,877/- the on road price of car to the complainant and also to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards her mental agony and pain with cost of the proceedings.
Brief facts of complainant’s case is that she purchased a HONDA AMAZE car from 2nd OP on 27/06/2016, vide model amaze SMT (D), Chassis No. 09263, Engine No. 15227 manufactured by 1st OP. The total on road prize of said car is Rs.8,28,877/-. The complainant submit that, while purchasing the said car,2nd OP made believe her that the car is of high quality and proper attention and care will be provided by him in any exigency arise. The complainant submits that, she purchased said car on rainy day and when she reached her house with new car, she could notice some etching marks in white colour on roof, Bonnet, and trunk of the car. So on the very next day, ie on 28/06/2016, she brought the car to 2nd OP and to bring notice of the same to him
and as per his instruction, sales quality Manager under the 2nd OP noted the above said marks I the Warranty Certificate and put this signature and seal. He made an endorsement on the warranty certificated that “ Kid of etching marks in white colour on Roof, Bonnet, Trunk found during delivery”. At that time, said sales Quality manager made believe the complainant that, said marks will be cured within a day or two or at the time of next service. The complainant submits that, there after she has been contacting 2nd OP on many occasions and on all times, 2nd OP replied evasively and prolonged the matter. Till date, 2nd OP has not cared to cure the defects. At the time of 1st service also 2nd OP failed to cure the said defects. Complainant further submits that even now the marks are there on the car. The failure of 2nd OP in curing the above said defects of the car, till date is a clear deficiency of service on his part. It caused great mental agony and irreparable hardship and injury to here. She caused to send notices through her counsel calling upon both OPs to replace her car with a new one of same model at free of cost within 15 days of receipt of the notice. For the notice, OPs sent a reply through their counsel on 06/10/2016 contending false allegations. The complainant submits that, there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence filed this complaint.
After receiving notice, OPs filed separate written version
1st OP filed version stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and denied all the allegations of the complainant. It is stated by 1st OP is that contended that the relationship shared between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 is on Principal to principal basis, therefore, the OP No.1 cannot be held liable for the alleged actions of other OPs. The OP No.2 bears the sole responsibility either respect to the sale of the cars and ancillary service and the liability of the OP No.1 is limited to the manufacturing defects, if any in the cars manufactured by it. Since, there is no manufacturing defect in the car of the complainant; OP No.1 cannot be held liable. The complainant has taken the delivery of the new purchased car without mentioning any complaint regarding the alleged marks. Thus, the said act of the complainant proves that there was no such marks, as alleged by the complainant at the time
of taking delivery of the car and have occurred subsequently, if at all, after the delivery of the car. The complainant has failed to prove that there are any marks, as alleged on the car of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. There is no negligence on the part of OP No.1. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
2nd OP submitted that the complainant had purchased a Honda Amaze car from the second OP. 23nd OP denied all the allegations of the complainant that they made believe that the car is of high quality and proper attention and car will be given to the complainant in any exigency arise etc. and that the complainant purchased the said car on a rainy day and when the complainant reached her house she could notice some etching marks in white colour on Roof, Bonnet and Truck of the car etc. Further denied that on the very next day, she brought the said car to the second OP to bring the notice of the same with them as per the instruction of the second OP and that sales quality manager under him noted the above marks in the warranty certificate and put his signature and seal etc. OP denied that above said marks were there at the time of purchase of the car and it caused huge mental agony and hardship to the complainant, that now the same is there in the car and that failure of the second OPO for curing the above said defects is a clear deficiency or service on the part of OPs. It is submitted that the said car was taken by the complainant after thorough check up and verification by the complainant and her relatives and it is evident from own papers. Further submits that it Is learned by physical verification of the OPs that a painting booth is functioning nearby the complainant’s house and the complainant is parking the nearby the complainant’s house and the complainant is asking the vehicle nearby said painting booth and the OPs further says that it may be the reason for the alleged compliant of the paint of the said vehicle and that tat the time of delivery of said vehicle there was no complainant on the painting and it is certified b the complainant herself giving delivery slip to the OP at the time of delivery of said vehicle to the complainant. It is stated that hence the OPs is not liable to replace the car or to pay the compensation to the complainant as demanded in the complainant since there was no deficiency in service on any manner from the part of OPs.
Evidence in this case consists of chief-affidavit of complainant’s husband with documents. He was examined as Pw1 and ext.A1, A1@ A2 and ext.A3 were marked on the side of complainant. He was cross examined for OPs 1and 2. From the side of OPs, present manager of 2nd OP Mr. Pradeesh filed his chief-affidavit. He was examined as Dw1 and was cross-examined for complainant. Ext.B1 to Ext.B5 were marked on the side of 2nd OP. 1st OP did not adduce oral or documentary evidence.
After that learned counsel of complainant filed written argument note and learned counsels of OPs made oral argument before us.
The undisputed fact in this case is that complainant purchased Honda Amaze car having Reg No.KL 13 AG 8439 On 27/06/2016 from 2nd OP which was manufactured by 1st OP worth rs.828877/-
Complainant’s allegation is that when she reached her house, she could notice some etching marks in white colour on Roof, bonnet and Trunk of the car. On the very next day morning the car was brought to the service centre of 2nd OP. The vehicle was checked by the sales quality manager of OP2 and he noted the above said defects in the warranty card and put his signature and seal. Complainant produced warranty card before us and marked as Ext.A1. The relevant page of ext.A1 containing the above said endorsement made by OP’s sales quality Manager is as Ext.A1(Q). On perusal of Ext.A1 @. On perusal of of Ext.A1 @ it is seen that there is an endorsement that kind of etching marks in white colour on roof bonnet, trunk found during delivery, marks shows an issue with coating on paint. Kindly rectify this at first service sales quality Manager- signature with seal and dated noted as 28/06/2016. Complainant further alleged that thereafter many occasions even at the first service time, they demanded to rectify the said defect on the vehicle. But 2nd OP’s sales quality Manager did not rectify the white dots on roof, bonnet, trunk found. Though complainant sent lawyer notice alleging deficiency in service on the part of 2nd OP due to failure to rectify the above said defect and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and pain and to replace the vehicle with a new car. Complainant further submitted that instead of redressing the grievance of complainant, OP sent reply with untrue facts.
On the other hand 2nd OP contended that the complainant has taken the car from the showroom after through checkup and verification and he has given full satisfaction letter. OP stated that the complainant had not approached them on the next day of purchase of the car with complainant of white dots and then their sales quality manager noted the white marks in the warranty certificate. According to 2nd OP such an incident had not occurred. It is submitted that on enquiry it is learned that a painting booth is functioning nearby the complainant’s house and the complainant is parking the vehicle nearby said painting booth and it may be the reason for the alleged complaint of the paint of the vehicle. According to 2nd OP they are not responsible for the itching marks in white colour on the vehicle.
1st OP submitted that since there is no expert opinion regarding manufacture defect of the vehicle and the complainant has no such case, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
Through ext.A1 @ complainant proved their allegations that on the purchase day itself they noted the white marks on the car and on the next day itself car was taken to 2nd OP’s service centre and OP2 sales quality manager admitted of the defect and made endorsement and further agreed to rectify the defect in the 1st service itself. From the contentions of OPs it is realized that OPs had not rectify the above said defect of the vehicle.
On analyzing the oral evidence it can be seen that Pw1 the husband of complainant has given evidence in support of complainant’s averments and allegations. OP’s one of the contention is that complainant has not taken steps to appoint an expert, to substantiate the white marks on the vehicle. But her ext a1 @ itself is sufficient, as the OP’s sales quality manager himself endorsed that there is “etching white colour mark on roof, bonnet, and trunk found during delivery.” Further Dw1 the present Manager of 2nd OP who has no direct knowledge about the incident, categorically deposed that the vehicle was brought to their office on the very next day of purchase with a complaint of white marks and also deposed that the seal marks shown in ext. A1 @ was made by complainant forged. Further stated that even after knowing the said fact they had not taken any legal steps against the complainant. From the facts stated as above, there is no reason to disbelieve the endorsement made in Ext.A1 @ by OP’s sales quality manager. Hence through ext.A1 @ complainant proved that there was etching marks in white colour on roof, bonnet, trunk during delivery time and the said complaint was noted to OP2’s office on the very next day of delivery of the vehicle.
OP’s next contention is that complainant and her relative have taken the car from the showroom after full check up and after making endorsement on delivery check list. Ext.B4. Here the complainant’s allegation is that she purchased car in question on a rainy day and when she reached her house, she could notice some etching marks in white colour on roof, Bonnet and Trunk of the car and so on the next day, she brought the car to 2nd OP and to bring notice of the same to sales quality manager. From the facts and circumstances of this case the above said amend of complainant is a believable one. So mere endorsement on Ext. B4 of complainant at the delivery time can pressure that the complaint received the vehicle wit full satisfaction after thorough check up.
OP raised another contention that a painting booth is functioning near by the complaint’s house and the complainant is parking the vehicle nearby to said painting booth and it may be the reason for the alleged complaint of white marks of the vehicle.
OPs did not prove their said contention by adducing evidence through examining any witness etc. Hence mere contention itself cannot be taken into account.
On analyzing evidence Pw1 it is realized that complainant had rectified that etching marks and he is using the vehicle. Further the vehicle has plied 60,000 Km at the time of giving evidence, that means the vehicle has no mechanical complaint.
From the afore said facts and circumstance s of this case, we are of the view that the white marks seen on the vehicle might have been occurred while painting the vehicle at the manufacturing unit of 1st OP and on noting the etching marks, 2nd OP should have rectified the said complaint. 1st OP also should have taken steps to rectify the defect arised by their customer through their dealer 1st OP. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of both OPs. Hence complainant is entitled to get relief. Here the vehicle had plied about 60,000/- Km. while Pw1, has given evidence before this commission. As there is a no mechanical defect, on the vehicle, we are not inclined to order to replace the vehicle with a new one. Complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental agony and hardship.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. OPs 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25000/- to complainant as compensation for her mental agony and hardship happened due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of proceedings of the case. The OPs shall comply; the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which complainant is at liberty to realize the awarded amount by filing execution application against OPs as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1 - Warranty certificate
A1(a) - Warranty certificate page 28
A2 - Lawyer notice
A3 - Reply notice by OP No.2
B1 - Sales contract
B2 - Sales receipt voucher dated 15/06/2016
B3 - Retail invoice of the vehicle dated 27/06/2016
B4 - Delivery check list dated 27/06/2016
B5 - Intant delivery feedback
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
