Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/30/2018

Mrs.P.Saravanea selvi W/o.S.Perumal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Honda Motor cycle & Scootor india - Opp.Party(s)

Shivekumar

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :02.03.2018 Date of disposal               :15.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                           : MEMBER-1

                                THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.30/2018

 

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 15^th   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

P.Saravana Selvi,

W/o.S.Perumal,

Flat No.5B-1, Door No.63,

Chetty street, Ayanavaram,

Chennai-600 023.

                                                                                                 .. Complainant.                                                                          ..Vs..

 

1.The Manager,

Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

Commercial Complex II, Sector:49-50,

Golf Course Extension Road,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122 018.

 

2. The Manager,

JSP Automotive,

Y219, 2^nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai-600 040.

 

                                                                       ..  Opposite parties.

 

 Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. G.S.Shive Kumar & S.V.Shyam

Karthik

Counsel for  opposite parties                     : M/s.P.Vinodh Kumar

ORDER

THIRU. V RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.61252/- towards the cost of the vehicle including Road Tax and Insurance and to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- towards the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards the cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant impressed by the advertisement of 2^nd opposite party wanted to purchase two wheeler viz. Honda Activa 4G.  She paid a sum of Rs.61,272/- and took delivery of vehicle on 13.07.2017 with registration No. TN 01 BC 8464 which is also insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai from 26.7.2017 to 25.07.2018 vide Policy No.71320031170100011358.  The complainant submits that when she took delivery of vehicle, she found there was a gap between handle and body of the vehicle besides fork bend and the same was brought to the knowledge of 2^nd opposite party and she was requested to brought the vehicle to 2^nd opposite party and accordingly she handed over the vehicle on 23.08.2017 for rectification.  After some time the complainant took delivery of the vehicle but she found the same problem persists and it was not at all attended by the 2^nd opposite party.  Again, the vehicle was handed over to 2^nd opposite party but the problem was not rectified.  Like this, four times the vehicle was handed to 2^nd opposite party for similar problem  and finally the vehicle was left in the custody of 2^nd opposite party from 13.12.2017.  The complainant submits that when she wants to meet the General Manager of the 2^nd opposite party, in his absence one Mr.Arun Nagappan, Sales Manager assured that defects will be rectified but till date that was not fulfilled but the vehicle was handed over to complainant without attending the problems whenever it was given to 2^nd opposite party.  Fifth time the vehicle was handed over to 2^nd opposite party and two days thereafter one Mr. Ranjith of 1^st opposite party called the complainant over phone and informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery.  The complainant further submits that the job card/tax invoice never revealed the nature of work done and stating only standard checks which reveals the deliberate concealment of nature of defect.  The complainant submits that the frequent fault is occurred due to manufacturing defect and the complainant is having apprehension to use the vehicle further confidently.  The complainants submit that till date the vehicle is in the custody of 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant submits that she issued an advocate notice to the opposite parties on 06.11.2017 which was received by opposite parties but no reply was received from opposite parties.  Therefore, the complainant seeks refund of Rs.61,252/- besides compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.  Hence this complaint. 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties deny the averments and allegations mentioned in the complainant as false and frivolous except those that are specifically admitted and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties submits that 1^st opposite party is a renowned manufacturer of motorcycles and scooters and the 2^ndopposite party is the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties submits that complainant visited the 2^nd opposite party showroom and the staff of 2^nd opposite party explains the salient features of the vehicle and gave the quotation for Honda Activa 4G and the complainant had decided to purchase the vehicle for Rs.61,252/- which includes insurance and registration charges.  It is false that the complainant was allured by the staff of 2^nd opposite party or advertisements. The opposite parties deny the averments in para 5 of the complaint and it was only complainant visited the show room and purchased the vehicle and got registration no. TN01BC8464.  The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 13.07.2017 to her entire satisfaction and had not raised any complaint.  The opposite parties submits that complainant had brought the vehicle for periodical service on 23.08.2017 and informed that there is fork bend and a gap between handle and body of the vehicle and for which the 2^nd opposite party analyzed the vehicle and found that there are no defects in the vehicle as alleged by complainant.  The opposite parties state that the complainant had not satisfied and wantonly brought the vehicle for rectification and for which the 2^nd opposite party took necessary care and therefore requested the first opposite party to check the vehicle.    Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party conducted the standard checks and found there are no such defects in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant.  There is also no manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant.  The opposite parties deny the averment of complainant that the opposite parties never rectified the defects in the vehicle and further states that the vehicle does not have any complaints or manufacturing defects.  The complainant brought the vehicle on 13.12.2017 for the same defects and had not taken delivery even after the second opposite party informed her that there are no such defects.  The reasons for not taking delivery of the vehicle by complainant is best known to her and it is complainant has to pay daily rental to the 2^nd opposite party for parking her vehicle in the parking yard.  The opposite parties deny the averments of the complaint that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and the complainant had not given any documentary proof to show the vehicle is having manufacturing defect or any expert opinion.  The opposite parties clearly explained to complainant that in the absence of any defects, the opposite parties could not do any rectification.  The opposite parties submits that they have not committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to the complainant.  Hence prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the opposite party caused any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint.

If, so to what extent?

Complainant had filed proof affidavit, written argument and documents Ex.A1 to A9 were marked on the complainant side.  The Opposite parties filed written version, proof affidavit, written argument and  document Ex.B1 was marked on the opposite parties side.

4. Point No.1:-

The undisputed facts of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased Honda Activa 4G vehicle from 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs. 61,272/- which is inclusive of insurance and registration charges and took delivery of vehicle on 13.07.2017 and the vehicle registration no.TN 01 BC 8464.  The quotation and payments receipts were marked as Ex. A1 to Ex. A3.

5. The complainant alleged that when the vehicle was taken delivery on 13.7.2017, she noticed gap between handle and body of the vehicle and fork bend.  The vehicle was given to 2^nd opposite party for rectification of defects on 23.08.2017 and the vehicle was delivered on 30.08.2017 but the complainant noticed again the same defects and subsequently she gave the vehicle to 2^nd opposite party on 07.10.2017 and 28.10.2017 for rectification of defects.  The complainant not satisfied with the services of 2^nd opposite party, she left the vehicle with 2^nd opposite party on 13.12.2017 and thereafter the vehicle is lying with 2^nd opposite party.  The vehicle ran only 2071 kms.  The job cards dated 23.08.2017, 07.10.2017, 28.10.2017 and 13.12.2017 were marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A7.   The complainant alleged that the vehicle got inherent manufacturing defect and it can lead to road accident endangering life of the complainant and the vehicle is not to be safe to driven on busy road.  The defects occurred during the warranty period.  The legal notices sent to opposite parties were marked as Ex.A8 and A9. 

6. On the other hand the opposite parties claims that the complainant thoroughly checked the vehicle and had taken delivery on 13.07.2017 to her entire satisfaction.  The complainant had not raised any complaint as alleged by her at the time of taking delivery of vehicle.   The complainant brought the vehicle for periodical service on 23.08.2017 and informed the fork bend and gap between handle and body of the vehicle.  The opposite party analysed the vehicle and found that there are no defects in the vehicle.  It was only complainant had brought the vehicle repeatedly to the service centre and on 13.12.2017 the vehicle was brought for same defects, but the vehicle was not taken back delivery by the complainant in spite of repeated requests and demands by 2^nd opposite party.  The vehicle service history filed by the opposite parties was marked as Ex. B1.  The opposite parties claim that on several occasions, it was clearly explained to the complainant that the opposite parties could not do any rectification in the absence of defects in the vehicle.  The opposite party states that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant had not given any documentary proof or expert opinion to prove the allegations. 

7. Averments and documents of both sides perused.  It is observed from the Ex. A1 that the complainant had obtained the quotation on 13.07.2017.  As per Ex. A2 and A3, the payment was made also on 13.07.2017 and the vehicle was taken delivery on the same day.  The complainant in her averments stated that when the vehicle was taken delivery on 13.07.2017, she found there was a gap between handle and body of the vehicle and further fork bend was also noted which was reported to second opposite party.  Whereas the opposite parties contends that the vehicle had been taken delivery by complainant after checking thoroughly and to her satisfaction.  As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant had noticed the defects on the date of delivery.  In that case, she could have refused to take delivery of that vehicle and taken another vehicle or made remarks in the delivery challan.  It is evident from the Ex. A1 to A3, that she obtained the quotation, made payment and took delivery of vehicle on the same day without raising any objection with regard the alleged defects stated in the complain.  But no proof of defects noticed by complainant was filed on complainant side.  The opposite parties claims that it is only during periodical service on 23.08.2017, the complainant had informed about the defects of fork bend and a gap between handle and body of the vehicle.  But the on thoroughly analysing the vehicle, it was found no defects in the vehicle as alleged by complainant.  From the Ex.A4, A5 and A7, the job card acknowledging the handing over of the vehicle to service centre, no information regarding any defects alleged by complainant were found.  It is observed from the Ex. A6, Job Card No.9733 dated 28.10.2017, the complainant wrote remarks “Problem not yet rectified”.  In the same job card the complainant also remarked “Vehicle received after one month (43 days)” and signed on 11.12.2017 with a declaration “I certify that the work has been done to my satisfaction and I have taken the delivery of my vehicle”.  From the Ex. B1, the service history of vehicle, it is noticed that the vehicle was given to service centre on various dates i.e. on 24.08.2017, 17.09.2017, 13.10.2017, 16.10.2017, 21.11.2017, 19.01.2018 and 29.03.2018 and only on 24.08.2017 free service was done and rest of the services were paid service and in the service type it is mentioned as “Minor Repairs” and nowhere the defects alleged by complainant was mentioned. Based on the above, in the absence of conclusive evidence, with regard to manufacturing defect and in the absence of any expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect simply because the vehicle has gone to the 2^nd opposite party on several occasions it cannot be presumed that the vehicle had manufacturing defect and hence it is found that complainant had failed to prove the defects in the vehicle as alleged in the complaint.  Hence the allegation of complainant in this regard is not maintainable.

8. The complainant further alleged that the vehicle has inherent manufacturing defect, and it has gone to opposite parties on several occasions for repairs and there is no necessity for a new two wheeler to go to workshop on several occasions for repairs within a short span of four months of its purchase and the vehicle is within the warranty period.  Whereas the opposite parties in their averments claims that there is no defects in the vehicle and it is only complainant repeatedly brought the vehicle to service centre complaining same defects.  The opposite party thoroughly analysed each and every time and also explained to the complainant that there are no defects in the vehicle and hence it does not need any rectification.  The opposite parties further contends that the complainant had not furnished any documents or expert opinion to establish the allegations of manufacturing defect.  As averred by the opposite parties, the complainant failed to file any document to prove the manufacturing defect or an expert opinion to establish the manufacturing defect.  Hence in the absence of any document proof or expert opinion, it cannot be concluded that the vehicle has inherent manufacturing defect.  Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the vehicle has inherent manufacturing defect is not maintainable.  Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

9. POINT NO.2

Based on finding given in Point no.1 there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. But at the same time admittedly from 13.12.2017 the vehicle is in the service center of 2^nd opposite party which was not taken back by the complainant. The complainant has not taken back the vehicle inspite of repeated requests and demands by the 2nd opposite party. In view of findings given in point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for refund of value of the vehicle or for compensation claimed in the complaint.  But if the vehicle is allowed to be retained with the 2nd opposite party it will be a loss to the complainant and unlawful enrichment to the 2nd opposite party which is against natural justice. Hence the 2nd opposite party is directed to return the  Honda Activa 4G vehicle in a fit and road worthy condition to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result the 2^nd opposite party is directed to return the Honda Activa 4G vehicle referred in the complaint in a fit and road worthy running condition to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order copy and the complaint is  disposed off accordingly. There is no order as to cost considering the facts of the case. The complaint against the 1^st opposite party is dismissed.

Dictated  by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15^th day of November  2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                MEMBER – II                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	13.07.2017	Quotation.
Ex.A2	13.07.2017	Receipt for Rs.12252/-
Ex.A3	13.07.2017	Receipt for Rs.50000/-
Ex.A4	23.08.2017	Job card.
Ex.A5	07.10.2017	Job card.
Ex.A6	28.10.2017	Job card.
Ex.A7	13.12.2017	Job card.
Ex.A8	04.11.2017	Advocate notice.
Ex.A9	06.11.2017	Acknowledgement card.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1

Vehicle service history.

 

MEMBER – I                                MEMBER – II                              PRESIDENT