Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/285/2013

Darshan Aulakh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Care India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Arun Singla, Adv.

07 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	285 of 2013
Date  of  Institution	:	08.07.2013
Date   of   Decision	:	07.08.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Darshan Aulakh son of Sh.Chanchal Singh Aulakh, resident of H.No.589, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Honda Car India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, District Gaurtam Budh Nagar, UP.

 

2]  Joshi Automotive Private Limited, through its President and CEO, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Jaswinder Singh, Manager Service c/o Harmony Honda c/o Joshi Automotive Private Limited, through its President and CEO, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh Deleted vide order dated dt.1.7.2013

 

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Sh.Arun Singla, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Karan Nehra, Counsel for Opposite Party-1.

Sh.Rajesh Verma & Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party  No.2.

Opposite Party No.3 deleted.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased a Honda Amaze Car Model Type Amaze 1.5 SMT (I-DTEC) (Diesel Model) from Opposite Party No.2, an authorised dealer of Opposite Party No.1., on 19.4.2013 for Rs.6,75,201/- (Ex-showroom price) vide Ann.C-1 and accordingly, sale certificate and Forum No.22 were also issued (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  The Opposite Party No.2 also issued invoice for Rs.3000/- as logistic charges (Ann.C-4).  The vehicle was also got insured. 

         It is averred that at the time of purchase of the car in question, the OPs informed the complainant that it is having mileage of 25.8 KM per litre (Ann.C-5) being claimed by the Company.  It is also averred that to the contrary the car of the complainant is only giving an average of 14.3 KM per liter, as shown in the meter showing the average, even after having first service of the car (Ann.C-6).  As such, a complaint with regard to low mileage of the car was made with the OPs, but still the problem has not been solved. It is pleaded that the complainant is well renowned personality as he is an actor in Punjabi Movies and is not having time to wait for whole day to get the said problem in the car resolved.  It is also pleaded that the complainant also told the OPs regarding other problems in the car such like when three people sit in the back seat of the car, the tyre of the car touch the Mudguard and also the indicator are manuals and when the car is running, the voice of the engine is very loud.  Though, the car was checked, but the problems highlighted by the complainant were nor resolved by the OPs. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 

2]       Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and admitted the sale of the vehicle in question.  It is stated that the mileage of the car has been claimed by the company based on the test conducted by ARAI certified government agency which approves the specification of the car (Ann.OP-1/D).  It is submitted that the vehicle does not suffer from any defect nor there is any problem with respect to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.  It is also submitted that the cause of low mileage is due to fitment of non-recommended alloy wheels which are contributing to low mileage performance of the car (Ann.OP-1/B Colly.) and this fact was also informed to the customer vide mail dated 13.6.2013 (Ann.OP-1/C).  The mileage obtained by users vary due to indefinite variables such as driving habits, driving speed, gear change, acceleration, road and traffic condition, fuel quality, average journey length, maintenance practices, loading pattern, ambient conditions etc.  It is stated that mileages are subject to ideal specific condition being achieved (Ann.OP-1/A).  It is pleaded that Honda Amaze is tested and approved product, which during one of the mandatory emission tested by government authorities has performed 25.8 km/l in standard condition.  It is asserted that the allegations of manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle, such as engine noise at high speed and mudguards touching the rear tyres when 3 people sit on the back seat, cannot to be taken as gospel truth on the mere statement of the complainant, but are required to be proved through credible documentary evidence.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint. 

         Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply and took the same pleas as has been taken by Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, hence the same are not repeated. However, it is pleaded that during inspection of the subject car as well as joint road test, it showed average of 25 KM (Ann./R-2). Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

         The Opposite Party No.3 has been deleted from the array of Opposite Parties vide order dated 11.7.2013.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant, who is the owner of a Honda Amaze Car 1.5 SMT Diesel Version, purchased on 19.4.2013 and the same is registered in his name.  The complainant claims that at the time of sale of the vehicle, the dealer had claimed 25.8 KMs. per litre of fuel average, however, during its use even before its first service, the average of the vehicle was around 14.3 KMs. per litre.  The complainant has also claimed that on raising this matter, the Opposite Party No.2 had advised that let the vehicle be used for some time and after the mandatory services, the average of the vehicle would improve, however, which did not happened.  In the meanwhile, some other problems namely touching of the rear tyres inside the mudguard, the indicators turning manually and an unusual loud sound was coming from the engine of the vehicle, were reported. The complainant is aggrieved of these problems which were not dealt with by the OPs giving rise to the present complaint.  

 

6]       The OPs have contested the claim of the complainant claiming that the fuel efficiency of the vehicle is as per the assessment of an independent agency, which is a statutory body of the government.  Furthermore, with regard to the problem of the rear tyres, it is claimed that the complainant has modified the tyre size as well as the rim of the vehicle leading to shortening of gap between the mudguard and the tyres, the issue with regard to an unusual sound from the engine as well as the problem with the indicators are denied. The Opposite Parties claiming no deficiency in service on their part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7]       The complainant during the proceedings, in order to prove his allegation, had preferred to seek an independent opinion by moving an application for inspection of the vehicle in question by an Expert.  The complainant’s application was allowed and the vehicle was tested/checked by PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh.  The report of the Expert Committee dated 14.11.2014 (now marked as Mark-X), has clearly indicated that the vehicle in question is only giving the mileage of 18.61 km per liter, the rear wheels ere touching the car body during jerks.  That no abnormal sound was heard from the engine as claimed by the complainant and the indicators did not return to usual position automatically as pointed out by the complainant in his application. 

8]       From the contents of the Expert Report (Mark-X), the issue with regard to unusual sound from the engine is completely ruled out.  However, while dealing with the issue of lesser mileage of 18.61 km per liter, as compared to the claimed 25.8 km per liter, the OPs have claimed that the variation in fuel average of a vehicle depends on different factors namely the driving habits of a driver, variable tyre pressure, road conditions, quality of fuel and maintenance of the vehicle. The Opposite Parties had claimed that as these factors have not been considered by the Expert Committee, while giving its opinion, therefore, the variation in mileage cannot be held to be a deficiency in service on their part.  It is also claimed that at no point of time the claim with regard to 25.8 km per liter average was claimed by the Opposite Parties, rather, only a indicative result of an independent body namely ARAI was shown to the complainant, which is as per Ann.OP-1/D.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable  for any deficiency in service on this score as there was no definite promise with regard to the fuel average of the vehicle from their side. 

 

9]       It is necessary to quote here that in a similarly placed case R.P.No.3666-3667 of 2014 – Em Pee Motors Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bamal & Anr., decided on 16^th Jan., 2015, the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, while dismissing the complaint had held that any claim with regard to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle, which has been sourced from a third party, cannot be made applicable to the manufacturer of the vehicle  and a complaint on such score is not maintainable nor any case of deficiency in service is made out against the manufacturer. The relevant extract of said judgments reads as under:-

7.         In our opinion, if the manufacturer of a vehicle claims a particular mileage based upon the result of a test conducted by a third party such as ARAI which is a body under the aegis of the Government of India, it cannot be said to have published false information or made a false representation with respect to the fuel economy of the vehicle. The very use of the word “falsely” in clause I of Section 2(r)(1) of the act clearly indicates that the representation which is impugned before a consumer forum should be false to the knowledge of the person by whom it is made. If a person bonafidely believes upon the report submitted by a third party such as ARAI and represents accordingly to the members of the public, it cannot be accused of having made a false representation. As far as clause VII of the aforesaid provision is concerned that in our view may not be strictly applicable since the said clause applies only to a warranty or a guarantee given by the manufacturer/seller of the vehicle. In any case, even if the mileage of a vehicle under ideal conditions is taken as a warranty or guarantee of the performance of the vehicle, it cannot be said that it was not based on adequate or proper test when the manufactures bases the said warranty or guarantee on the report taken from a third party such as ARAI which before submitting its report subjects the vehicle to test in terms of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules.

8.         As regards the report given by the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, a perusal of the report clearly shows that the vehicle was driven in the city, before the said report came to be given. There is nothing in the report to even suggest that the vehicle was driven under the same controlled conditions under which it was tested by ARAI. There is no information available to us as regards the comparative condition of the road on which the vehicle was driven by ARAI vis-à-vis the condition on which the vehicle was driven by PEC. We have no information (i) as regards comparative qualification, experience and driving habits of the persons who drover the vehicle, (ii) as regards the traffic conditions which were available at the time the vehicle was driven at Chandigarh vis-à-vis the traffic conditions under which the vehicle was driven by ARAI, (iii) as regards the quality of the fuel which was used by PEC Chandigarh vis-à-vis the quality of the fuel used by ARAI and (iv) as regards the load which the vehicle carried when it was driven by the experts of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. More importantly, the vehicle came to be driven by the experts of Punjab Engineering College sometime in July 2013 whereas it was purchased by the complainant in March 2011. Thus, the vehicle had already been used for about two and half years before it was tested by the experts of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. It can hardly be disputed that with the passage of time, and due to use of the vehicle, the vehicle may not give the same mileage as is given when it is absolutely new. The mileage given by a vehicle is the result of a number of factors including (a) the road on which the vehicle is driven, (b) the traffic on the road at the time it is driven, (c) the quality of the fuel used in the vehicle, (d) the speed at which the vehicle is driven, (e) the number of times brake is applied to stop the vehicle, (f) load carried in the vehicle, (g) air pressure in the tyres/tubes, (h) condition of the tyres and (i) the overall condition of the vehicle, etc.. Therefore, a vehicle which gives a particular mileage under standard test conditions will never be able to deliver the same mileage when it is driven on a city road and that too, under conditions different from the conditions under which it was test driven.

       

10]       Therefore, in view of the aforementioned judgment, we restrain ourselves in commenting about the variable mileage, which as per the complainant was claimed by the Opposite Parties and the average which the complainant was getting while driving the vehicle in question. 

 

11]      The issue with regard to the touching of the rear tyres of the vehicle inside the mudguards, the Opposite Parties has claimed that the complainant had changed the original tyres with another ones and also that he had even changed the rims of the vehicle by replacing them with alloy wheels.  The Opposite Parties have placed on record photograph of a vehicle bearing Temporary No.CH-54(T) 2483.  The Opposite Parties have also placed on record photographs Ann.A (Colly.) filed along with the objections to the Expert Report showing that the complainant had changed the original tyres of the size 175/65 R14 with those of 195/55 R15, claiming that bigger tyre size contributes towards lower fuel average as experienced by the complainant and also that the bigger tyre size also reduces the gap between the tyre and the mudguards of the vehicle, thus causing the rear tyres to touch inside the mudguards.

 

12]      However, we feel that there are other contributory factors, which result in touching of a tyres inside the mudguards, and those could due to faulty shock absorbers and also faulty rear suspension. The Opposite Parties have nowhere mentioned that they have satisfied themselves after inspection of the vehicle that there was no other fault with the vehicle while attributing the same towards the size of the wheel and the tyres. Therefore, the reply/version of the Opposite Parties with regard to touching of the tyres inside the mudguards on account of change in size of the tyres and the rims can only be believed partially for the reason that if the complainant has changed all the four tyres, he should have experiences this problem with the front tyres too, which is not the case of the complainant, as he has not alleged such happening with the front tyres.  It is a common knowledge that the front tyres of majority of the vehicle also bear the load of the engine and other equipments, which is more in case of diesel vehicle, as is the case of the complainant.  The Opposite Parties have failed to answer as to why only rear tyres were giving such problem. The Opposite Parties should have inspected the vehicle thoroughly before laying the blame at the door of the complainant about his complaint of the tyres touching the mudguards.  The Opposite Parties have not placed on record any job card showing us that they have inspected the rear suspension and shockers and there was no fault with them.  The absence of such an action on the part of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

 

13]      The last and final issue is with regard to the manual operation of the indicator assembly which the complainant claims is to be operated manually whereas the same should come back to its original position after its operation.  The Expert Committee Report also substantiates the allegations of the complainant about the faulty indicator assembly, which did not return to usual position automatically. Though the Opposite Parties have placed on record, copy of the job card dated 25.9.2013, wherein all the three issues i.e. average low, engine vibrations and tyre touching inside, are found mentioned, whereas there is no entry with regard to the indicatory assembly switch.  Even the reply of the Opposite Parties has nowhere mentioned the same by claiming that they are ready to repair the same, even after the opinion of the expert committee, confirming the same in its opinion.  The vehicle of the complainant at the time of raising this issue was within warranty period and any such replacement should have been dealt with free of cost by the Opposite Parties, whereas we do not find any such action on the part of the Opposite Parties which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 

 

14]       In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant on the score with regard to the touching of the tyres inside the mudguards and the issue of faulty indicator switch only. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

 

[a] To pay a consolidated compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[b] To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the compensation amount Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

7^th August, 2015           

                                                                             -Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.285 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 7th day of August, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member