| Final Order / Judgement | 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/91/19 Date of Institution:- 12.03.2019 Order Reserved on:- 04.06.2024 Date of Decision:- 25.06.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Ashok Sharma RZ-111/7 Street No.20, Vashisht Park, Pankha Road New Delhi – 110046 .….. Complainant VERSUS - V D Honda
RZ-1A, Gali No.2, Sitapuri, Pankha Road, New Delhi – 110045 - Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.
A 105, 1st Floor, Iris Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana - 122018 ……Opposite Parties Per Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member - The complainant purchased a Honda Activa125 scooter, vehicle no. DL-9S-BP-3476 from OP-1 manufactured by OP-2 on 18.032018. The complainant alleges that since before the first service of his scooter, serious faults and a knocking sound could be heard from the engine. He discussed the issues with the OP-1 mechanics, but they could not resolve the problems with his scooter.
- Since the scooter would break down in the middle of the road, the complainant visited the authorised service centre of OP-2, i.e. OP-1, several times and even left his scooter with them for repair for 2-3 days, each time to no avail. Instead, he was informed that the noise was coming from the accessories, side guard, and body of the vehicle, not from the engine. The OP-1 mechanics opened the engine several times and, after changing some settings,would return the same after 2-3 days.
- The complainant states that on one particular occasion after his scooteragain broke down in the middle of traffic, he consulted the local service station mechanic, who told him that the drive belt was slipping while driving. The complainant took his vehicle to OP-1 yet again, who only changed some settings in the clutch before returning it to him. Thereafter,his vehicle suffered from several problems, like overheating and excessive noise, which resulted in the complainant revisiting the
OP-1.This time, the mechanic of OP-1 foundscratches on one side of the piston, which caused OP-1 to change the Piston Cylinder Kit without finding the cause of the problem.
- Again, on 27.10.2018, the complainant's scooter stoppedon the roaddespite replacing the Piston Cylinder Kit. The complainant had to tow it home when the OPs did not help the complainant.The complainant states that he was given no job card even though he had requested the same from OP-1. Suffering from mental, physical and financial agony because of the defects in his scooter, the complainant filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service. He prays for a refund of the cost of the scooter, i.e. Rs.62,005/- along with 18% interest, Rs.10,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by him as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards the cost of the petition.
- On notice, the OPs filed a joint reply stating that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the OPs had extended complete cooperation and service to the complainant, having provided all the facilities and repairs. Denying that the complainant had provided his vehicle for repair to the OP-1, the OPs claimed that the complainant had only sent some emails and WhatsApp messages to OP-1 and to one engineer.
- Admittedly,the mechanics at OP-1 opened and checked the engine parts tosatisfy the complainant when he visited OP-1 complaining of noise from the engine. However, no defect was found in his vehicle's engine, which was checked every time he brought it to OP-1. Only after the complainant's satisfaction was the vehicle returned in time.
- Further, since the complainantadmitted to having gotten his scooter opened by a local mechanic, as per the company policy, the guaranteeof his scooter expired when the vehicle was opened at anunauthorised service centre. The OP thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- Thereafter, the complainant filed a rejoinder and affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments made in the complaint. When the OPs failed to file the affidavit in evidence to prove on record the statements made in their reply,despite giving them several opportunities, the OPs were proceeding Ex-parte vide order dated 28.10.2022. The complainant filed his written arguments, and we have heard the complainant in person alone as none appeared for the OPs who areex-parte on the date of fixed for final arguments.
- We have carefully reviewed the present complaint's facts and circumstances and perused the documents filed by the contesting parties. We find that the complainant purchased a scooterActiva 125 from OP-1 manufactured by OP-2 on 18.03.2018. He faced several issues with his vehicle, which he brought to the notice of OP-1, the authorised service centre of OP-2. The main grievances of the complainant were the strange knocking sound emitted by the engine of his scooter along with the overheating of the engine of his scooter after he drove the scooter only for a few kilometres.
- The complainant took his scooter several times from OP-1, where it was opened and checked thoroughly, and deep scratches were found on the piston on one side. OP-1 replaced the Piston Cylinder Kit and insisted that the sound was not from the engine but from the guard rail accessories on his vehicle.
- The complainant alleges that his scooter broke down several times despite the replacement of the Piston Cylinder Kit. On 27.10.2018, i.e. after only 7 months of purchasing the new scooterthe complainant'svehicle again broke down, and the OPs did not help him to resolve the issue. Hence, the complaint.
- The OP filed their reply denying any sound from the engine after engineers/ mechanics of OP-1 checked the scooter who found no defects in the complainant's vehicle. The OPs admitted that they had changed the cylinder kit at the OP-1 service centre,but they did so at the behestand demand of the complainant. Putting the blame solely on the complainant, the OPs claim thatthe complainant did not get his vehicleserviced every 3 months at OP-1, the authorised service centre of OP-2, which can cause damage to the engine and other parts of the scooter.
- Further, the complainant got his engine opened and checked by a local service provider/unauthorised service centre; hence, the warranty as provided in the terms of the warranty. Therefore, it is the complainant's own fault that his scooter is not functioning to his satisfaction. After filing the reply, the OP did not file the affidavit to be read in evidence and hence were proceeding Ex-parte.
- In our view, the OPs' admission that they changed the Piston Cylinder Kit in the complainant's scooter within 7 months of purchasing the new scooter is sufficient to show some defect in the vehicle. The cylinder kit, commonly known as CK, is a vital component in the mechanics of motorcycles and scooters. Essentially, it serves as the core of an internal combustion engine and primarily consists of a cylinder, piston, and cylinder head.
- The OPs are ex-parte and have not substantiated their bald and contradictory statements made in their reply with any documentary evidence for reasons best known to them. The fact that the piston cylinder kit had to be replaced within a short time of purchase reveals some defect in the complainant's scooter, which the OPs could not rectify to the complainant's satisfaction. This inability to repair the complainant's scooter to be road-worthy and without fault is tantamount to deficiency in service.
- Hence, allowing the complainant, we direct the OPs to jointly and severally pay the complainant a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him, inclusive of litigation cost.
- 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 25.06.2024.
| |
