STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Manu K. Bhandari, S/o Sh. K.B. Bhandari, R/o H.No.82-A, Sector 8, Panchkula

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.  Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.67, Ind. Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

2.  M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)

 ....Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:          Ms.Anamika Mehra, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent no.1

                    Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for respondent no.2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.67, Ind. Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

1.  Manu K. Bhandari, S/o Sh. K.B. Bhandari, R/o H.No.82-A, Sector 8, Panchkula.

…..Respondent/complainant.

2.  M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)

 ....Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:          Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for appellant /Opposite Party                     No.1.

                    Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate for respondent/complainant.

                    Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for proforma respondent/Opposite             Party no.2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

V e r s u s

1.  Manu K. Bhandari, S/o Sh. K.B. Bhandari, R/o H.No.82-A, Sector 8, Panchkula

…..Respondent No.1/complainant

2.  Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.67, Ind. Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

 .... Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by: Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the appellant/Opposite Party                     No.2.

Ms.Anamika Mehra, Advocate for respondent no.1/complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.1.

BEFORE:          JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT.

                    MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT

1.               This order shall dispose of the aforesaid three First Appeal Nos. 166 of 2012, titled as Manu K. Bhandari  Vs. Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited and anr., 176 of 2012 titled as Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited  Vs. Manu K. Bhandari and anr. and 185 of 2012, titled as  M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.,  Vs. Manu K. Bhandari and anr., arising out of the common order dated 10.04.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-

“In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, is writ large, on account of selling a car to the complainant, which is having serious defect and having persistent problem of emitting foul smell from its AC Unit. Therefore, the present complaint, having lot of merit, weight and substance, must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed to replace the entire AC Units of the car in question, without charging anything from the complainant on account of replacement, repair or labour charges etc.  They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him great mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.

This order be complied with by both the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.01.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of  Rs.15,000/-’’.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now appellant in First Appeal No.166 of 2012, respondent no.1 in First Appeal No. 176 of 2012  & First Appeal No.185 of 2012), purchased one Honda City 1.5 S MT car, from Opposite Party No.1,  on 24.11.2008. When he started using the A.C. of the car, in February, 2009, it transpired that the same was totally ineffective, and a foul smell used to be emitted from the A.C. Unit. According to the complainant, whenever the vehicle was sent for service, to the service centre of the Opposite Parties, a complaint was made regarding ineffectiveness of the A.C., as also of emission of foul smell therefrom. Every time, the Officials of Opposite Party No.1, assured that necessary corrective measures would be taken, cause of foul smell shall be removed, and effectiveness of the A.C., would be set in order. However, each time, Opposite Party No.1, against the assurances given by it, failed to set right the things. When all the frantic efforts, made by the complainant, failed to elicit any fruitful results, a legal notice  Annexure C-3, as a measure of last resort, was got served, calling upon the Opposite Parties,  to replace the car, but to no avail. Also, the emails exchanged between the complainant and the Opposite Parties, were of no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               Opposite Party No.1, (now appellant in First Appeal No. 176 of 2012, respondent no.1 in  First Appeal No.166 of 2012,  and respondent no.2 in First Appeal No.185 of 2012), in its written version, admitted the purchase of the car, in question, by the complainant, from it. It was denied that the A.C. of the car was ineffective. It was also denied that there was any kind of foul smell, emitting from the A.C. unit. It was stated that, whenever, the problem in the A.C. unit was brought to the notice of the technicians of Opposite Party No.1, the same was recorded, in the respective job cards of the car, and was attended to, by them efficiently and effectively to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that problem of A.C. cooling was checked, and it was found O.K. It was further stated that the car, in question, was delivered to the complainant, in a perfect merchantable automobile, without any defect, in any of its parts. It was further stated that there was neither any problem, with regard to the working, efficiency and effectiveness of the A.C. unit, fitted in the car, nor it was emitting any foul smell.  It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               Opposite Party No.2, (now appellant in First Appeal No. 185 of 2012, respondent no.2 in  First Appeal No.166 of 2012,  and Proforma respondent in First Appeal No.176 of 2012), in its written version, admitted the purchase of the car, in question, by the complainant, in November 2008. It was stated that, for the first time, a complaint, regarding ineffectiveness of the A.C. and emission of foul smell therefrom was made in June, 2009. It was further stated that the A.C. system of the vehicle was checked and found in perfect working condition, as per the given specifications. It was further stated that, whenever the defects were brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2, by the complainant, the same were rectified to his entire satisfaction. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.               Feeling aggrieved, First Appeal No.166 of 2012, titled as Manu K. Bhandari  Vs. Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited and anr., was filed by the appellant/complainant, for enhancement of compensation, awarded by the District Forum, as also for reimbursement of Rs.10,000/-, by the Opposite Parties, which were paid by him (complainant) to the experts of the Punjab Engineering College, University of Technology, Sector 12, U.T., Chandigarh.

8.               First Appeal No. 176 of 2012 titled as Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited  Vs. Manu K. Bhandari and anr. and First Appeal No.185 of 2012, titled as  M/s Honda Siel  Cars  India  Ltd.,   Vs.    Manu   K.   Bhandari, and anr., for setting aside the order of the District Forum, were filed, by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, for setting aside the impugned order, being illegal.

9.               We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.            The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, in First Appeal No.166 of 2012, titled as Manu K. Bhandari  Vs. Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited and anr., submitted that, right from the day of purchase of the car, in question, its A.C., was not properly functioning, but, on the other hand, it was ineffective. She further submitted that even a foul smell was continuously emitting from the A.C. unit, as and when the vehicle was driven. She further submitted that these were the major defects, in the car, purchased by the complainant.  She further submitted that even,  the  panel of experts of the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, U.T., Chandigarh,  on inspection of the vehicle, found that during the test drive, foul smell  was coming out of the ducts of the A.C. system of the car, which was not bearable. She further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, right in awarding compensation, and litigation costs. She further submitted that the District Forum, awarded a very meagre compensation, and also failed to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-, paid by the complainant, to the experts of the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, U.T., Chandigarh, who examined the car. She further submitted that the order of the District Forum, deserves to be modified, to this extent.

11.            On the other hand, the Counsel for both the appellants in First Appeal No. 176 of 2012 titled as Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited  Vs. Manu K. Bhandari and anr. and First Appeal No.185 of 2012, titled as  M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.,  Vs. Manu K. Bhandari and anr., submitted that neither the A.C., of the car was ineffective, nor it was emitting a foul smell. They further submitted that, as and when, the vehicle was brought to the service centre of the Opposite Parties, whatever defects were reported, were rectified, to the satisfaction of the complainant. They further submitted that the complainant, even after the order was passed by the District Forum, for production of the car, before the experts, did not produce the same before them, for a very long time, and it took about 2 years for him, to produce the car, before them, which, in itself, was sufficient to prove that the car was not suffering from the aforesaid defects, but the same were manipulated. They further submitted that even the report dated 13.04.2011, of the panel of experts of the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, U.T., Chandigarh, is not based on any scientific data and material. They further submitted that, in the report, it was not mentioned, as to which equipment was used, for coming to the conclusion, as to on account of which reasons, foul smell was allegedly coming out of the A.C. ducts. They further submitted that the panel of experts did not even open the A.C. unit, to find out the real cause of the alleged emission of foul smell. They further submitted that even the panel of experts, did not check the specifications and chemical composition of the A.C. gas, used in the vehicle. They further submitted that no test results of the technical expert of A.C., of the vehicle, were evaluated to find fault in the components like compressor of the A.C., cooling coil, receiver dryer, blower  etc. etc. They further submitted that even the detailed objections, filed by the Opposite Parties,  to the report of the panel of experts, were not touched, discussed and analyzed by the District Forum, in the impugned order. They further submitted that it was the duty of the District Forum, to deal with the detailed objections, filed by the Opposite Parties, to the report of the panel of experts, but it failed to do so, as a result whereof, its order being cryptic and, as such, illegal is liable to be set aside.

12.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that  appeal Nos.176 of 2012 and 185 of 2012 are liable to be accepted, and the complaint deserves to be remanded back for fresh decision, in accordance with the provisions of law.  Undisputedly, the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the complainant. According to the complainant, whenever he drove the car, its A.C. was emitting foul smell, as also the same was ineffective. The first job sheet is dated 01.06.2009, at page 66 of the District Forum file, where the complainant, complained with regard to A.C. cooling and emission of foul smell therefrom. On checking, the A.C. cooling was found O.K. No foul smell was also found. When the complaint was pending, before the District Forum, an order dated 10.08.2010 was passed by it, that the car should be referred, to an expert. Accordingly, the application filed by the complainant was allowed, and the car was ordered to be sent to the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Sector 12, U.T., Chandigarh, for examination, and report of the panel of experts. The report of the panel of experts  was ordered to be awaited till 31.08.2010. The car was purchased by the complainant, on 24.11.2008. The panel of experts was appointed by the District Forum on 10.08.2010, whereas the car was produced before the experts, in April, 2011. No plausible reason was furnished by the complainant, as to why, the car was produced, before the experts, after such a long delay. The perusal of the record shows that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, filed detailed objections, running into a number of pages, to the report dated 13.04.2011 of the panel of experts,  but the same were not even touched by the District Forum, in its judgment, what to speak of discussing and analyzing the same. It was the duty of the District Forum, to go through the detailed objections, to the report of the panel of experts, filed by the Opposite Parties, analyze the same, in context of the report, as also the other evidence and record. Thereafter, the District Forum, could come to the conclusion, as to whether, the objections filed by the Opposite Parties, were having any force, and, thus, were required to be accepted or the same  were frivolous, and, thus, were required to be discarded. By not touching the objections, filed by the Opposite Parties, to the report dated 13.04.2011, in its order, by the District Forum, it failed in its duty, in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. On account of this reason, the order passed by the District Forum is cryptic. In this view of the matter, a direction is required to be given to the District Forum, to discuss the objections, analyze the same, in the context of the report of the panel of experts, and the evidence and record, and then accept or discard the same. For undertaking such an exercise by the District Forum, the order is required to be set aside, and the case deserves to be remanded back.

13.            For the reasons recorded above, First Appeal No. 176 of 2012 titled as Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited  Vs. Manu K. Bhandari and anr. and First Appeal No.185 of 2012, titled as  M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.,  Vs. Manu K. Bhandari and anr., are accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is set aside, and the complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction, to take into consideration the detailed objections, filed by the Opposite Parties, discuss, and analyze the same, in context of the report of the panel of experts, the other evidence and record, and thereafter, decide the case, afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the parties, of being heard, within 3 months from 16.08.2012.

14.            In view of the decision rendered in First Appeal Nos. 176 of 2012 and 185 of 2012,  First Appeal No.166 of 2012, titled as Manu K. Bhandari  Vs. Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited and anr., filed by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed, as having been rendered infructuous, with no order as to costs.

15.             The parties are directed to appear, before the District Forum on 16.08.2012, at 10.30 A.M.

16.            The District Forum record be sent back, immediately, alongwith a certified copy of this order, so as to reach there, well before the date fixed.     

17.            Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.            The appeal files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

1^ST August, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg