DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing: 27/08/2019

CC/215/2019

Sathyanarayanan@Suraj Varma

S/o E. Ramachandran, Devaki Niwas

Vidhya Nagar –East, Street no. 3

Akathethara

Palakkad -678 008                                            -              Complainant

(By Adv. A.Anjana)

Vs

1. Ghani Motors

Fort Maidan

Kunnathurmedu P.O

Palakkad-678013 

Represented by it's Manager 

2. Ghani Motors, Service Centre

    Opp.PVS Ford

N H 47, Karingarappully, Kadamkode, Palakkad

Represented by it's Customer Service Manager Mr.Pramod

(1^st & 2^nd opposite party by Adv. P.K.Dileep)

3. Honda Motor cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

Commercial Complex II

Sector 49-50, Golf Course Extension Road

Gurgaon, Haryana -122 018

Represented by it's President & CEO Minoru Kato

4. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

South Regional Office

Unit -01,1st Floor, West Wing

Golden Heights

59th C Cross

4th M Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore

Karnataka -560 010                                          -            Opposite parties

(3^rd & 4^th opposite parties Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1. Pleadings of the Complainant in brief

The complainant  purchased a Honda - Activa 5G two wheeler manufactured by third opposite party from their first opposite party dealer on 27/08/2018 paying Rs. 57,077/- Since beginning, the complainant felt some unusual vibration and  jerking during initial acceleration which continues even while riding the vehicle.  This was intimated to the second opposite party during the first free servicing on 29/09/2018.  After the 1st servicing the problems continued and the vehicle was taken to the second opposite party again on 05/10/2018 and 07/11/2018 for rectifying the defects.  Second free servicing was done on 04/01/2019.  On 28/03/2019, the vehicle met with an accident causing minor scratches on the metal parts of the body.  The second opposite party charged Rs. 900/- for the repairs, telling that paint damage is not covered under insurance.  The vehicle continued to have all the initial jerking and vibration problems inspite of taking the vehicle to the second opposite party on several occasions as detailed above.

On 05/07/2019, the vehicle developed starting trouble, and the battery got replaced under warranty.  According to the complainant, changing of battery with in an year of purchase reflects the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties.

Even after 3 free servicing and 6 paid servicing, the vehicle continued to show the defects explained earlier apart from a comprehensive reduction in other performances.  On 31/07/2019 when the vehicle was taken to the second opposite party, their service engineer informed that most of the said model motorcycle is having this type of problems and they are unable to fix the exact reason for the same rather than considering it as a manufacturing defect.

Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached this Commission seeking replacement of the defective vehicle or refund of the purchase price of Rs. 57,077/- with interest @12% pa, compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for mental agony and physical loss apart from a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- for giving misleading advertisements about the vehicle and cost.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties.  First and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed their joint version refuting all the allegations made by the complainant.  According to them, the vehicles, after manufacturing, undergo severe quality control checks before dispatch and at the dealer level all these checks are repeated before delivering the vehicle to the individual customers.  The vehicle in question also had undergone these tests and declared road worthy, before delivery.  The vehicle has so far run 8548 km till 21/08/2019 and is being used by the complainant for his business related works.

3^rd & 4^th opposite parties did not file any version.

3. ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to the complainant?  
2. Whether the opposite parties failed to give proper and timely after sales service to the complainant?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A26 as evidence.  Report of Expert Commission was marked as C1 & C2.

Ext. A1 is the copy of the tax invoice of the vehicle purchased, A2 is the warranty registration card, A3 is the copy of the RC of the vehicle, A4 to A6, A8, A10, A11, A12, A14, A15, A20, A22, A24, are copies of job cards relating to the servicing of the vehicle by second opposite party, A7, A9, A21, A23 & A26 are the bills for the amount paid by the complainant for servicing on various dates, A16 is the brochure of the vehicle in question, A17 is the vehicle history summary report, A18 & A19  are  the vehicle service history, A25 is the warranty claim report and A13 is the proprietary warranty claim form.  At the instance of the complainant an Expert Commission was set out and report was marked as Ext.C1.  The complainant raised some objections to the said report and the Expert Commissioner was directed to submit additional report and additional report submitted is marked as Ext.  C2.

Issues 1 & 2

From the series of documents marked as evidence it is very much clear that the vehicle in question had serious problems, since beginning.  The complainant had to take the vehicle for servicing/repair very frequently to the service centre for the rectification of the defects.  The service records clearly show that the vehicle continued to have the same problems even after the rectification/repair.  The report filed by the expert commissioner on 24/08/2020 (Ext. C2) is clearly certifying that the vehicle was having the jerking and vibration problems as alleged by the complainant apart from other defects like, self starting problem, pulling towards right side, clutch and suspension problems etc.  Though the Expert Commissioner is not prepared to confirm that these problems are due to manufacturing defect, the inability of second opposite party the authorized service centre of the manufacturer to fix the problems and to rectify them inspite of a series of attempts by them is a confirmed indication that the vehicle suffers from serious defects. 

In the version filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 they have made blanket denials of all the allegations made by the complainant instead of giving point wise replies. The only point they wanted to highlight was the quality tests done by the manufacturer and the dealer before delivering the vehicle to the customers and hence the vehicle certified road worthy after such quality checks are not supposed to have any manufacturing defects.  In the proof affidavit filed by the second opposite party, the same contention is repeated. Their further argument is that the manufacturing company (3^rd & 4^th opposite parties) is only liable for any manufacturing defect.  It is pertinent here to note that the manufacturing company (3^rd & 4^th opposite parties) has not come forward to join the proceedings and hence not utilized the opportunity given by this Commission to present their case and to prove the allegations of the complainant wrong.

In the deposition of DW1 also, no vital information could be extracted in favour or against the pleadings of the complainant.  However he was not prepared to confirm that the problems reported are due to manufacturing defects.

Issues 3 & 4

From the narrations given above it can be concluded that the vehicle in question suffer from serious defects and that is why the opposite parties couldn't rectify them inspite of the warranty protection available.  This amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed.

Issue 5

In the result, the following reliefs are ordered

1. The 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defects of the vehicle to the complete satisfaction of the complainant or to pay Rs. 35,000/- being the approximate  depreciated value of the vehicle considering the fact that the complainant has been using the vehicle.
2. The 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties  are also jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony; &
3. Rs. 15,000/- as cost.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.   

Pronounced in open court on this the 10^th day of February 2023.

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                               Vinay Menon V

                                                        President 

                                                               Sd/-

                                                         Vidya A

                                   Member   

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                            Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:

Ext.A1:  Invoice no.18IN04274 dated 27/08/2018 issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ext.A2:  Warranty Registration Card dated 27/08/2018.

Ext.A3:  Registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing Registration No: KL-09-

              AQ-857.

Ext.A4:  Job Card for servicing dated 28/09/2018 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A5:  Job Card for servicing dated 05/10/2018 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A6:  Job Card for servicing dated 04/01/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A7:  GST Invoice dated 04/01/2019 issued by Ghani Motors Olavakode.

Ext.A8:  Job Card for servicing dated 21/03/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A9:  GST Invoice dated 26/03/2019 issued by Ghani Motors Olavakode.

Ext.A10: Job Card for servicing dated 19/04/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A11: Job Card for servicing dated 10/05/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A12: Job Card for servicing dated 26/06/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A13: Proprietory Warranty Claim form dated 26/06/2019.

Ext.A14: Job Card for servicing dated 05/07/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A15: Job Card for servicing dated 30/07/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A16: Brochure of Honda Activa Motorcycle.

Ext.A17: History summary report of the vehicle issued by 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A18: Vehicle service history.

Ext.A19: Vehicle service history.

Ext.A20: Job Card for servicing dated 26/08/2019 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A21: GST Invoice dated 26/08/2019 issued by Ghani Motors Kadamkode.

Ext.A22: Job Card for servicing dated 11/01/2020 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A23: GST Invoice dated 11/01/2020 issued by Ghani Motors Olavakode.

Ext.A24: Job Card for servicing dated 12/03/2020 issued by 2^nd opposite

               party.

Ext.A25: HMSI Warranty Claim Report.

Ext.A26: GST Invoice dated 01/10/2019 issued by Ghani Motors kadamkode.

Ext.C1:   Expert Commission Report dated 18/03/2020.

Ext.C2:   Expert Commission Report dated 03/08/2020.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined- Nil

Cost- Rs. 15,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.