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

===

M/s Kansal Singla & Associates, SCO 80-81, 4th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Partner Sh.Tirloki Nath Singla.

---Complainant

                 V E R S U S

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

2.  Harmony Honda, Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

3.  Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Ltd., Plot No.6, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

                      ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL,                 PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh. Aman Bahri,Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Karan Nehra, Adv. for OP No.1

Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP No.2

Sh.Aftab Singh Khara, Adv. for OP No.3

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant-company purchased Honda Civic 1.8 VMT for a sum of Rs.12,02,000/- vide invoice dated 18.06.2008 (Ann.C-1) from OP-2 (authorized sales agent) bearing Regd. No.CH-04-E-9696 (Ann.C-2), having two years warranty (Annexure C-3). The complainant also got extended warranty (Annexure C-4) by paying additional payment. The problem, as per the complainant arose, when he along with his family member, were going to Vrindavan on 07.02.2009 in the said car, its back body was touching the tyres time and again. The same was quite pronounced on speed breakers and on pot holes.

         It is averred that on 20.02.2009, the car was examined by OP-2, who reported that there was no defect in the car and it was in OK condition.  It was also stated that the car in question met with a minor accident, in which only the front bumper and front lights were damaged. Consequently, he took the vehicle to OP-3, for its inspection, who gave its report dated 27.02.09 (Annexure C-6) to the effect, that the suspension was found to be O.K. Whereas according to the complainant, OP-3 failed to cure the defect.  Thereafter, he made the complaint dated 06.03.2009 (Annexure C-7) to OP-1 regarding the problem being faced by him. The complainant contended that he ran from pillar to post to get the problem rectified, but the OPs refused to do so, on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he got the car inspected form Er.Sukhjit Singh Gill, who gave his Report dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure C-9) stating therein, that the rear shock absorbers and recoil springs as well as suspension of the car are faulty and require replacement. The complainant also attached photographs of the car in question as Annexure C-10 (Colly.). It is alleged that since the OPs have failed to rectify the defects in the car, within the warranty period, that amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2]       OP-1 filed its written statement. The factum of purchase of the car from OP-2 has been admitted, but denied that the car was self driven by Mr.Singla. It has been pleaded that the complainant did not have any dealing with OP-1, except that the car being manufactured by the replying OP and the same was purchased by the complainant through its dealer. It has further been pleaded that since there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, therefore, the answering OP cannot be fastened with any liability for the acts of omission & commission of other OPs. It has been denied that the car was sent to OP-2 to cure the defect on 20.02.2009.  It has been admitted that as per report of OP-3, dated 27.02.2009, the suspension of the car was found to be OK and there was no defect in the vehicle. It has been pleaded that since there was no defect in the vehicle, therefore, the question of its rectification does not arise.

         It is asserted that the car of the complainant was examined by a qualified service engineer and no defect was found in it.  Furthermore, the report along with affidavit of Dinesh Kumar, Sr.Exec.-Service Quality & Technical, is annexed as Ann.A & B colly. Denying all other material allegations of the complainant, OP has pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       In its separate written statement, OP-2 pleaded that the vehicle was sold, subject to the conditions of warranty on the terms, contained therein.  It is also pleaded that their obligation is only to repair or to replace the defective components, at its sole discretion, during the warranty period; that also when they acknowledge such defects, attributable to the faulty material or workmanship. It has been pleaded, that the vehicle is perfect merchantable automobile which was without any defect. Whereas the facts with regard to the purchase of the vehicle, warranty period and extended warranty are admitted. But denied that there is some problem in the absorbers or suspension/recoil springs of the car due to any defect. It has also been denied that the complainant has ever visited its premises on 20.02.2009. It has been pleaded that the report Annexure C-9 is false and procured one.  OP No.2 has placed on record the inspection report as Ann.R-1 and Service History Report as Ann.R-2, to prove their stance. Pleading contrary to the allegations of the complainant, that the vehicle in question is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4]       OP-3 filed its written statement and admitted the sale of vehicle. It is stated that on the application moved by the OP No.2, the vehicle in question was thoroughly inspected on 06.12.2010 by Sh.Dinesh Kumar, Senior Executive (Service Quality and Technical) (HSCIL) at the premises of OP-2 and as per the said report, no defect was found in the vehicle (Ann.-B). It has further been pleaded that the vehicle has been checked, taking due care of all parameters. However, no inherent manufacturing defect was found in the vehicle.  It is submitted that the vehicle, when reported for accidental repair, during the warranty period, was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. The copy of the invoice dated 9.3.2009 (Ann.D) has been annexed.  Pleading that the answering OP is not liable for any manufacturing defect, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

5]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]       We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record along with written arguments of complainant & OP-1. 

7]       The dispute, which gave rise to this complaint, is on account of non-removal of the defects in the car in question.  The grouse of the complainant is that the unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs, is to that extent, that inspite of charging extra for the extended warranty, they refused to accede to the grouse of the complainant.  Rather refuted the contention of the complainant, saying that the vehicle is OK, having no defect.  Moreover, in all their averments, they have tried to prove that the said vehicle is defect free. 

8]       The complainant further asserted that the OPs had sold a car having manufacturing defect, particularly in the suspension of the vehicle; which they were unable to remove, rather denied of the existence of the same, just to wriggle out from their liability.

9]       Opposite Party No.1, in the written statement, denied of having any manufacturing defect in the disputed vehicle.  In its defence, it was averred that the complainant has not filed any expert evidence to prove the contention that the said vehicle has a manufacturing defect. Furthermore, the report (Annexure C-9 at Page 41) annexed by the complainant is not supported by any affidavit and therefore, such report cannot be considered as evidence in the eyes of law, because that is based on non-scientific parameters and is merely a self-serving report.  Even in case of natural wear & tear, on account of abnormal maintenance and improper driving, the manufacturer cannot be burdened with any liability as such.

10]      On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 admitted the purchase, warranty as well as extended warranty of the said vehicle, but averred that it is their sole discretion, during the warranty period, to repair or to replace the defective component.  It is also asserted that the vehicle is in perfect merchantable automobile, sans any defect. Opposite Party No.2 categorically stated that as per Test Report, the specification of the car, qua suspension, shockers are as per approved specification from ARAI.  Therefore, the allegations/averments made by the complainant are vague and baseless.

11]      Opposite Party No.3 also averred, in their written statement, that the vehicle in question is not having any inherent manufacturing defect, as alleged by the complainant.

12]      Now, in order to determine the factual position of the case and to come to the conclusion, reliance has to be placed on the documentary evidence, placed on file, by the parties.  First of all, the Vehicle Inspection Report, placed on record by OP No.1 as Annexure-B, is being taken into consideration. This report is based on the tests conducted by Sh.Dinesh Kumar, Sr.Exec.-Service Quality & Technical, at Harmony Honda, Chandigarh. The relevant extract of this report is reproduced below:-

         “CONCLUSIN:

1.  Rear tires are not touching wheel housing (vehicle body) on road bumps or pot holes.

2.  Noise comes only when vehicle is driven abnormally on sharp inclination pot holes or damage road (on high speed without reducing vehicle speed).

3.  Under body touching due to unspecified height speed-breaker on road.

    No under body touching observed on speed breaker made by Govt. specification.

4.  Rear tires having inside wear due to alignment values of rear axle found out of Specification as alignments are not done on regular interval.”

13]      On the other hand, the complainant has also placed on record the Inspection Report, dated 17.6.2010, prepared by Sh.Sukhjit Singh Gill, Hons. Mech. Engg., M.I.E., F.I.V., C.Eng.I, AMFI, Registered Valuer and a Chartered Engineer, certified that the rear shock absorbers and recoil springs as well as the suspension of the car are faulty and require repair/replacement. The relevant extract of the said inspection report reads as under:-

“The car was examined physically, with engine running & car stationary, and then test driven on road under normal conditions, with one driver + 4 passengers, without any luggage.  It is observed that

i)  The rear rubber tyres are worn out un-evenly, with inside tread being worn out.

ii) At even small bumps, the rear shock absorbers & recoil springs do not seem to be working, and the car body is hitting against the rubber pads.

SUMMARY:-

From the above examination of the car, and its driving test, it is observed that the rear suspension of this car seems to be faulty and requires repairs/replacement.”

14]      Besides this, the complainant has also placed on record the photographs of the car in question as Ann.C-10 which show that the back wheels of the car are almost touching the body of the car. 

15]      After considering all the relevant documents, especially the Inspection Reports, placed on file by both the parties, it has been made out, after in-depth perusal of these reports that the Inspection Report filed by the complainant as Ann.C-9, prepared by Sh.Sukhjit Singh Gill, Hons. Mech. Engg., M.I.E., F.I.V., C.Eng.I, AMFI, Registered Valuer and a Chartered Engineer, who is well qualified and experienced person, is more explicit, detailed, weighty, genuine and believable, in comparison to the Inspection Report of OPs.  Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the report, referred to above, placed on record by the complainant. In view of this, it is held that the rear suspension of the car in question is faulty and requires repairs/replacement.

16]      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 non-rectification of defect in the car, as pointed out from time to time by the complainant. 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 rectify/remove the fault in the rear suspension of the car in question by carrying out necessary repairs or replacement, to the entire/full satisfaction of the complainant and it should be done totally free of cost, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of the vehicle in workshop of OPs, failing which they shall be liable to pay Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation for the harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant, due to the deficient act & conduct of the OPs.

         Apart from the above relief, the OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.