Delhi

West Delhi

CC/09/114

TEJPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HONDA MOTORCYCLE - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

 

CASE NO.  114/2009

SH. TEJPAL SINGH

S/o SH. RANJIT SINGH,

R/o C2B/1A, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058                                                                        …..Complainant

VERSUS

M/S. HONDA MOTORCYCLE & SCOOTERS INDIA(P) LTD.

PLOT NO. 1, SECTOR-3, IMT MANESAR,

DISTT. GURGAON, HARYANA-122050            …..Opposite Party-1

 

 

BHASIN HONDA (SHOW ROOM)

CAPITAL SCOOTERS (PVT) LTD.

28, RAJA GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110015                                   …..Opposition Party-2

 

BHASIN HONDA (WORKSHOP)

56-B, RAMA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110015…..Opposition Party-3

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI,PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly the facts are that the complainant had purchased Honda Scooter bearing registration No. DL4SBE 7315 on 10/07/2007 from OP-2 vide cash receipt No. 1901, dated 10/07/2007. After purchase the aforesaid scooter developed manufacturing defect such as “Hard Gear shifting with loud sound”. The scooter was taken to workshop of OP-3 ON 03/08/2007 but the problem was not over. After 15 days the vehicle was again taken to OP-3 for rectification of defect vide job card No. 69456, dated 17/08/2007 but the defect still persisted and the scooter started giving more loud sound. On 4^th service OP-3 linked the defect to clutch plate and told that clutch plate would be replaced on payment, though the scooter was within the warranty period. Consequently, OP-3 replaced the clutch plate on payment of Rs. 1150/- which was paid by complainant under protest but the defect continued and developed major fault as a result Kick Jammed on 03/01/2009. The scooter was again taken to workshop of OP-3 where he was told that engine has to be opened to know the defect and he was further informed that some parts like crankshaft, clutch plates magnet etc. had to be replaced on partial payment. The case of the complainant is that his grievance should be decided on merits with cost of litigation.

          OP-1 filed reply stating that complaint is frivolous, defective and liable to dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has leveled bald allegations regarding manufacturing defect. The complainant has used the vehicle for over one and half years and had run 19,761km and therefore it could not be said to be suffering from any manufacturing defect.

          OP-2 & OP-3 also filed reply admitting that vehicle was purchased by complainant on 10/07/2007 but denied that vehicle was suffering from any defect. It is further stated that job card dated 03/08/2007 related to free service of the scooter and had nothing to do with any defect nor any such defect was pointed out. At no stage did the complainant represented any problem of the nature of hard gear shifting with loud sound as alleged in the complaint. It has also been denied with clutch plate regarding hard gear shifting with loud sound. It is prayed for complaint be dismissed.

          Though OP has denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle but this forum during the course of proceeding sent the matter to Pusa Polytechnic Institute on 29/12/2009 with the direction to file report as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle if so whether such defect is/are removable by repairing or by changing any part thereof and thirdly if the vehicle is reparable what would be estimated cost of expenditure required to get it repaired. Where upon Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, HOD Auto Engg. Department, Pusa Polytechnic Institute filed his report dated 15/01/2010 by answering the questions to the defects:-  

1. The inspection was done on Honda Eterno Scooter Regn. No. DL4SBE 7315 after 19,600km runs of the vehicle. During test drive of above said vehicle following defects were found:

1. Combined operation – Clutch and Gear shifting was difficult
2. Slippage sound was heard during changing of Gears.
3. Flywheel keyway depth was less to hold properly a Woodruff key in house.
4. Noisy engine

The defect serial no. 1/iii was a manufacturing defect.

2. The above defects can be removed by replacing the following parts:

1. Cylinder block and head assy. complete
2. Crank shaft assy. with bearings.
3. Connecting rod and Piston assy.
4. Clutch assy. complete.
5. Gear shifting mechanism
6. Flywheel and woodruff key

The above defects occurring since beginning, these may be due to defect serial no. 1/iii (a manufacturing defect).

3. The estimated cost for the rectification of above cited problem would be approximately Rs. 18,000/-.

The complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint.  On the other hand Sh. R.K. Chopra S/o Sh. Dharam Chand has filed affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the written statements.  Parties have also filed their written submissions.

          We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the documents carefully and thoroughly.

The OP no doubt, filed objections on the report of the aforesaid vehicle but we do not find any substance in the said objection because the report is coming from Govt. Institution and is, thus accepted. The report has categorically pointed out the manufacturing defect in the vehicle of the complainant which could be repaired with the expenditure of Rs. 18,000/-. Now, question arises if the vehicle is found to have manufacturing defect can OP be directed to replace the vehicle or refund the price thereof. Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased in the year 2007 and we are now in 2019. Almost long 12 years have gone by and the vehicle had covered mileage of19,600 km as on 15/01/2010. In view of the situation stated above, we do not think it a good option to order for refund or replacement of the vehicle nevertheless the complainant needs to be compensated for having suffered the travails of trial for more over a decade. In light of the facts and circumstances delineated above we are of the considered view that it would meet the end of the justice if the expenditure estimated by the expert to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- on 15/01/2010 is doubled because the cost of spare parts needed for repair might be doubled now.

 

Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 36,000/- for repair of the vehicle in favour of the complainant and as against OP and further we also award a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days from the receipt of the order. In case of default of payment in time OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization.

File be consigned to Record Room.

          Copy of Order be given as per rules.

          Announced this _____23TH_____ April, 2019.

 

(K.S. MOHI)                                                                             (PUNEET LAMBA)

PRESIDENT                                                                                         MEMBER