Delhi

East Delhi

CC/354/2017

VISHAL RANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CAPITAL CARS - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 354/2017

	Vishal Rana S/o Mr. Mahesh Kumar R/o D-54,T-3, Block D Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095	….Complainant
Versus
1	Capital Cars Private Limited Plot No.1, Patparganj Industrial Complex, Near Mother Diary Delhi-110092	……OP1
2	Honda Cars India Ltd. 409, Tower B,DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi	……OP2
3	Alpine of Asia Pacific India Limited Registered Office: EROS CORPORATE TOWERS, LEVEL 15 NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI 110019   Corporate Office(s):   (1) Plot No 11, Sector 31, Ecotech-1, Kasna Industrial Area, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA, PIN- 201308   (2) Plot No. D-26, Info city-II, GTPL, Sec-33, Gurgaon PIN- 122001, Haryana	……OP3

 

Date of Institution: 30.08.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 17.01.2023

Judgment Passed on: 03.02.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant Mr. Vishal Rana as filed by him as an Attorney of the registered owner Sh. Shyam Lal Rana, his father, with respect to the deficiency in the Audio Video Navigation System (AVNS) as installed in the car, sold by OP1 manufactured by OP2 and AVNS installed by OP3. 

 

2. Initially the complaint was filed against OP3 by mentioning its name as Alpine (India) Pvt. Ltd.  but subsequently an application was filed by complainant to implead Alpine of Asia Pacific India Ltd. as OP3 and deleting the Alpine (India) Pvt. Ltd. by stating inter alia that he got confused with the name of OP3 and in fact the name of OP3 is Alpine of Asia Pacific India Ltd. That application was allowed and therefore, in the cause title of the Judgment, the name of OP3 is mentioned as Alpine of Asia Pacific India Ltd.   

 

3. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the father of the complainant purchased the car from OP1 on 09.06.2016 having registration No.DL-14-CC-6845 which is manufactured and installed by OP2 including the AVNS system enabled in it which AVNS system is manufactured by OP3, for consideration, and since the car is being used by Sh. Vishal Rana the attorney, he has filed the present complaint as attorney of the registered owner.  It is informed that the AVNS installed in the car was defective from the day one and he made a call on 18.09.2016 for servicing and told them the problem with respect to Radio Tuning and asked for the replacement of the AVNS but the same was not done.  He visited again on 15.02.2017 thereby informing the defect w.r.t ‘noise in speakers while using Bluetooth and navigation while driving’.  He was assured that they will fix the problem however the same was not done despite the fact that the some authorized service person from the OP3 company visited the complainant’s office and even confirmed that there is a fault in the AVNS.  The complainant told them to replace the same which was replaced on 18.09.2016 and it is further stated that although the AVNS was replaced yet.  However the complaint still remained and the OP replaced AVNS and he visited again and it was replaced once again on 05.07.2017 and despite replacing the AVNS twice the problem subsisted and as such he has filed the present complaint inter alia asking that the OP be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of Music System, Rs.25,000/- as mental pain and agony & legal and litigation charges.

 

4. All the OPs were served.  The OP1 has filed reply inter alia taking various preliminary objections to the effect that present complaint is not maintainable as OP1 has no role in the installation of AVNS and the same is manufactured by OP3.  As far as OP2 is concerned he is the manufacturer of Honda Cars and in case of any defect with respect to any manufacturing aspect, the same would be taken care of by the OP2, as he (OP1) only sales the vehicle as manufactured by OP2 on dealership basis.  But, otherwise the present complaint is false, frivolous and vague as the complaint is based on defective AVNS manufactured by OP3 and there is no allegation w.r.t. deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as far as OP1 is concerned.  Neither any cause of action has arisen against OP1 nor any direct allegation has been leveled against OP1 w.r.t. deficiency in service by OP1 and as per the report received from OP3 as well as the complainant himself the AVNS admittedly has been changed on 18.09.2016 and it is further stated that it was again replaced on 05.07.2017 i.e. twice and complainant is not coming to the Commission with clean hands when he submits that it was replaced only twice.         

 

5. It is reiterated that the manufacturing defect with respect to AVNS can only be resolved and complaint can be redressed by OP3 only and OP1 has no role and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed against OP1.       

 

6. OP2 has filed its reply taking preliminary objection that OP2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the proceedings as all the allegations have been leveled against OP3 who is the manufacture of AVNS or OP1 who has sold the vehicle and since OP2 has neither received any consideration directly from the complainant nor has tendered any services for consideration to the complainant and as such he is not a necessary party in present case.  The complaint has been filed only to defame the OP2.      

 

7. It is further stated that even if there is some defect, no independent  mechanical inspection of the  AVNS has ever been carried out and as such he has been unnecessarily involved by the complainant for ulterior motives and there is no cause of action against OP2. 

 

8. It is further submitted that in terms of the judgment in Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Syeed Hasan Bukhari and Ors., i.e. Revision Petition No.1235 of 2014, the Hon’ble National Commission has inter alia held that relationship between the manufacturer and authorized dealer is on principal to principal basis and once the vehicle is sold, all other services are to be rendered by the authorized dealer and the manufacturer is only a service provider for the dealer and manufacturer is not a service provider for the complainant and by reiterating that there is no privity of contract, it is prayed  that he be deleted from the array of OPs. 

 

9. As far as merits are concerned the contents of preliminary objections are reiterated and submitting that OP2 does not provide warranty against defects in material and workmanship of the AVNS and as such no liability can be fastened upon the manufacturer of the car.  The claim is stated to be highly exaggerated and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant is liable to dismissed and may kindly be dismissed against OP2. 

 

10. OP3 has filed its Written Statement taking the preliminary objections that instant complaint filed by the complainant is vexatious, frivolous, unattainable and devoid of any merits.      

 

11. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint only to raise a mischievous, false and frivolous dispute to harass the answering OP with intention to achieve unjust and illegal enrolment but otherwise Consumer Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint nor the complainant has come to Commission with clean hands and it is submitted that AVNS installed in his Amaze Car by OP3, is neither defective nor there is any deficiency of service and as per company’s policy, OP3 is suppose to repair the AVNS during the warranty period in case of any defect, and in this present case, AVNS was replaced twice by the OP3 and was working perfectly well.  The OP3 has so far sold more than 30000 units of this AVNS without having any specific complaint from any quarter and even otherwise bare perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant has miserably failed to disclose any manufacturing defect or any deficiency in service by the answering OP.  

 

12. The facts w.r.t. any defect in the AVNS of the OP3 are denied and it is stated that it is admitted case of the complainant that noise use to come from speakers while the person in car is using the Bluetooth which inter alia means that if the car is at halt with engine running, no such problem would occur which elaborates that there was no defect in the AVNS rather the defect might have been in the Bluetooth or FM or Pendrive as inserted by the OP in the AVNS and that problem may be related to the poor connectivity of the mobile or may be some network issue as signal strength varies from area to area.  The possibility of loose wiring connection that connects the AVNS with speaker also cannot be ruled out and all these facts required a detailed evidence including the cross examination.  Therefore, this Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present case and may kindly be dismissed.  It is reiterated that AVNS was replaced on 18.09.2016 and not only this it was again replaced on 15.07.2017, and thereafter complainant had checked all the buttons of the AVNS which all were functioning properly and only after having fully satisfied with the performance of the AVNS he took the delivery of the car.    

 

13. It is further stated that the Complainant use to make routine calls with respect to defect in the AVNS.  The allegation levelled against the employees of OP3 are also denied specifically. 

 

14. As far as merits are concerned the contents of preliminary objections are reiterated and contents of complaint are denied word by word and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed.            

 

15. Complainant thereafter has his own affidavit of evidence and the OP1 has filed evidence of Col. VBL Pachori as well as of Sh. Kamal Manchanda the another director.  OP2 has filed evidence of Sh. Rishabh Patani its authorised signatory and OP3 has filed evidence of Sh. Rajender Jha, Senior Accounts Manager.  All the parties have filed their written submissions.     

 

16. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 

 

17. The crux of the complaint are that complainant’s father purchased the car from the OP1 manufactured by OP2 in which music system was installed by the OP3 and the complainant had certain issues with respect to the AVNS installed by OP3 particularly at the time when he use to drive the vehicle and used Bluetooth and that was causing immense noise in his ears which was resulting to his adverse health, he being a patient of migraine and sometime the noise was unbearable.  He visited various times to the OP1 and OP3 for the replacement of the AVNS which was even replaced twice but the AVNS installed by the OP3 was not functioning well even after replacement and as such he has filed the present complaint case against the OPs. 

 

18. The defence of OP2 who is the manufacturer of the car is that neither he sold the car nor he took any consideration from the complainant and as such he is not a necessary party and be deleted from the array of parties and defence of OP1 is that he is not liable for any fault even if it is there, as he is only a dealer who sells the cars manufactured by OP2 without making any changes in the accessory installed therein and as such he is not a necessary party, whereas the defence of OP3 in nutshell is that there was no defect in the AVNS and despite that, but only to satisfy the customer the AVNS was replaced twice but complainant continued to repeat one and the same fact but there was no defect in the AVNS particularly while using the Bluetooth as alleged while driving, and in fact it has been replaced but the contention of the complainant to replace it with AVNS of another brand is not feasible.   

 

19. The Commission has perused the entire file and has also gone through the various documents filed by the parties.  Complainant has not filed any Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OPs.  Even in his evidence he has admitted that the AVNS was replaced twice as against the allegation of OP3 that it was changed thrice but the fact remains that it was replaced.  The contention of the complainant is that it has to be replaced with another brand of AVNS has been totally rejected by OP3 as well as by OP2, the manufacturer of the car, by stating that it is their internal arrangement as the AVNS system of which company has to be installed, depends upon the internal wiring system of the vehicle and all the necessary wiring and technical aspects are taken care of in view of the music system/ AVNS to be installed and which cannot be changed.  This contention of OP2 and OP3 is therefore well found.  The contention of complainant that it should be changed with another brand therefore cannot be appreciated.  As far as replacement of the AVNS is concerned, it has been admittedly changed twice at least as admitted by the complainant.      

 

20. The issue is therefore whether the AVNS was in fact not proper or whether there was some other disturbance as explained by OP3 in his written statement i.e. the issue with respect to connectivity, the issue with respect to brand of the Bluetooth, the issue with respect to network and issue with respect to some expert opinion.  The Case of the complainant is that when he uses speaker through Bluetooth and the vehicle is on running mode then it causes a huge noise.  To prove this contention apart from self serving affidavit of the complainant there is no evidence on record.  The process of using Bluetooth is so personal that no other person can form any opinion with respect to the noise / sound going into the ears of the complainant.  For any other person who would be using this AVNS through Bluetooth, the experience may be different but if the complainant himself is using his own Bluetooth system then he alone can hear the sound and he alone is the witness and he alone is the complainant, to say that it is causing noise.  Unless and until this defect is also observed by someone else either by using the same Bluetooth or by using the separate Bluetooth, the self serving affidavit of the complainant would not come to assist him.  Further, neither there is any inspection report by any expert with respect to the use of Bluetooth nor there is any application even to get it inspected through expert.  The brand of Bluetooth the working capacity of Bluetooth the connectivity within different areas where the car travels and the internal operating system of Bluetooth are the major facts which would have been helpful to the complainant to get his allegation proved.  It also cannot be presumed that first AVNS and the other two replaced AVNS would be having same defect and it could have been only appreciated if there would have been some different observation by some other person other than complainant but there is no such evidence on record.

     

21. Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove that the music system so installed by OP2 in the car sold by OP1, including the AVNS, was having any deficiency.  The allegation that official of OP1 did not hear him properly, or he had been visiting various times by sparing time and he was having any mental agony or pain even after the replacement of AVNS are also not proved by the Complainant.    

 

22. Therefore, Complaint of the Complainant is dismissed.          

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. 

File be consigned to Record Room

Announced on 03.02.2023.