Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/87/2017

Dr. Narinder Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Courtesy Honda Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Garg Adv. & Shama Adv.

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

 U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	87 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	24.01.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	13.07.2017

 

 

 

 

Dr.Narinder Gupta, R/o #172, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.   

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Courtesy Honda, Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., through its Director/Authorised Signatory, Plot No.6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002

2]  Rajnish Kaushik, Dy.Service Manager, Courtesy Honda, Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002

3]  Babu Ram, Senior Service Supervisor, Courtesy Honda, Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Kunal Garg, Counsel for complainant.

 Sh.A.K.Khara, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased Honda Civic 1.8 v-1 AT on 31.12.2011 from Opposite Party NO.1 and got it registered vide Regd.NO.CH-01-AL-0172.  It is averred that the complainant on 23.12.2016 took his car to Opposite Party NO.3 for service.  It is also averred that the OP No.3 persuaded the complainant to get the other jobs done along with service such as AC clean, Anti Rust Coating, Door Panel Treatment, Engine Coating, Interior Clean, Shockers Pad Grease, Silencer Coating, Surface Coating, Wheel Alignment and Balancing and to replace one tyre.  However, the complainant refused the Opposite Party No.3 to get any other job done except basic service of the car i.e. to replace the oil and also to clean the car, but inspite of that, the OP No.3 arbitrarily done the other jobs against the instructions/wishes of the complainant and asked him to collect the car on 27.12.2016.  It is submitted that on 27.12.2016, when the complainant visited OP No.3 to collect his car, he was shocked to receive a handmade bill for an amount of Rs.29,391/- for simple service.  It is also submitted that when the complainant objected to the huge bill amount, the OPs humiliated him and defamed in front of other customers and the complainant was forced to pay the bill through cheque No.000781.  The complainant was asked to collect the car after clearance of the cheque i.e. on 28.12.2016 and when the complainant visited, Opposite Party No.3 on 28.12.2016, he was surprised to note that the computer generated bill is of Rs.27,595/-, but still the OPs did not refund the excess amount.  It is stated that the complainant visited the OPs a number of time and asked OP No.3 for the job card to show the signature of the complainant for such repairs and to refund the overcharged amount beyond service amount, but they did not pay any heed, rather misbehaved with the complainant.  It is further stated that the only basic service cost comes to Rs.2402/- including engine oil change and labour charges, but the over and above, amount of Rs.26,989/- charged by the OPs was totally illegal and arbitrary.  Alleging the above act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting factual matrix of the case, stated that the plea of the complainant that the work was done without his permission is belied from the telephonic calls record with the complainant and OPs.  It is stated that as per the telephonic calls made to the complainant (Ann.R-3), it is clear that the complainant was made aware about the job required to be done in the vehicle as the driver of the complainant dropped the vehicle at the workshop and told to talk to the complainant regarding the work to be done on the vehicle.  It is stated that the OPs kept on informing the complainant regarding the things to be done on the vehicle and regarding the tentative invoice.  It is submitted that the complainant has produced the invoice dated 28.12.2016 wherein the total service amount has shown as Rs.27,595/- and which includes a brand new tyre of Michlin Make worth Rs.6674/- and the complainant has further taken a Honda Car Road Side Assistance for which he paid Rs.1796/- (Ann.R-1) and therefore, the total invoice was raised to Rs.29,391/-. It is also submitted that the complainant was fully aware of the invoice bill and therefore, he gave a cheque of Rs.29,391/- on 27.12.2016 without any protest regarding the invoice. It is further submitted that the complainant failed to show that the bill charged by the Opposite Parties is not justified.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]        We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant, a doctor, aged 62 years took his car Honda Civic Engine No.401335, Regd. No.CH-01-AL-0172, to Service Centre of Courtesy Honda Lally Automobiles (P) Ltd., Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh (OP No.1) on 23.12.2016 for normal periodic service.  Daljinder Singh, Driver of the complainant dropped the car at the Service Centre at 11.40 AM on 23.12.2016.  The Manual Service Repair Form was prepared at the Workshop duly acknowledged by Daljinder Singh, Driver (Page/6) annexed with the affidavit of Rajesh Jagota, Service Manager (OPs).

 

7]       In the Job Card, no instructions have been issued/subscribed by the complainant or his driver for any work other than normal service of the vehicle, but the Opposite Parties on their own carried out the following ancillary work in the vehicle:-

         a)  Underbody rust treatment;

         b)  internal Panel Anti rust treatment;

         c)  Motor Care treatment;

         d)  Kit as Inflator C;

         e)  Silencer coating treatment;

 

8]       The Opposite Parties only with an intent to inflate the bill for unlawful gain, has done above senile work, which are superfluous in nature, but never can be termed to be essential in the car, which has run only 35817 Kms. in Chandigarh, where the roads are excellent and climate is moderate (Ann.C-5).

 

9]       The OPs have also charged Rs.1796/- for Honda Car Roadside Assistance Policy without any demand or request from complainant, which is illegal and unauthorized.

 

10]      The companies as publically known, have developed infrastructure with a large network of task force under the tag of Service Advisors, who keep on calling the car owners by telephone as well as SMS inviting them for service by offering special concessions and who trapped the vehicle owners and do all the tricks to overawe the customers by projecting upheaval/risks, if the work as per their advice is not carried out in the vehicles.  Under their misguided conceptions, the people fell prey to their traps, compelled to pay unwanted huge wasteful expenditure against their will.

 

11]      The vehicle of the complainant has run only 35817 Kms. as on 23.12.2016 and one of its tyre has been replaced.  The normal life span of tyre in plain/Hill area is as follows:

 

	Hilly Area	Plain Area
Light vehicle	35000 kms.	45000 kms

 

         Provisional Manual for Central Reserve Police Force, published under the Authority of Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs- MHA WO NO.7627/JSP (74) dt. 3.8.1974, refers above.

 

12]      The OPs have replaced the tyre despite refusal of the complainant to do so, as is explicit from Para No.3 of Affidavit of Rajesh Jagota, Service Manager, M/s Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (OPs). 

 

13]      The Opposite Parties have changed the tyre for earning profit by selling on higher rates than the open market.

 

14]      The complainant left his car in the Service Centre of OPs on 23.12.2016 and the car was delivered to him on 28.12.2016.  The OPs definitely have detained the car for unreasonable long period despite receipt of money on 27.12.2016 from the complainant, which caused him harassment. 

 

15]      The Opposite Parties in their written statement, Reply on Merits in Para No.9 & 10, has stated that “...the complainant has alleged that he has a medical shop in the High Court premises and is in the vicinity of the Hon’ble Judges and he can manage to get the orders against the answering Opposite Parties.”  Such aspersions of the Opposite Party are unwanted and uncalled for.

 

16]      The Opposite Parties have done the anti-rust treatment without the consent of the complainant just with an object to earn unlawful gain at the cost of complainant, which amounts to unfair trade practice.  The unhealthy trade tactics as adopted by OPs in the present case required to be curbed with strict mandate.  Accordingly, the OPs are hereby issued censure with warning to be careful in future and do not exploit the innocent customers. 

 

17]      Keeping in view the highhandedness and unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complaint is allowed, as prayed for with directions to OPs to pay back Rs.26,989/- along with compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties and file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13^th July, 2017                             Sd/-

                                          

                                                                         (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                    

                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                           (PRITI MALHOTRA)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER