Haryana

StateCommission

A/413/2018

M/S KISHIV MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

LABH SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.BANSAL

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.413 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 06.04.2018

                                                          Date of final hearing: 21.02.2023

Date of pronouncement: 20.03.2023

 

1. M/s Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd., 9^th K.M. Stone, Village Khuddi, Ambala Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.
2. M/s Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd. village Umri, NH-1, G.T. Road, Kurukshetra.

…..Appellants

Versus

1. Labh Singh S/o Sh.Badlu Ram, R/o Gali No.7, Ward No.27, Shanti Nagar, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar Distt. Kurukshetra.
2. Honda Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kashna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) through its Managing Director.
3. Honda Car India Limited, 409, Tower-B, DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi.
4. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Civil Lines Arya Chowk, above OBC Bank, Ambala City, Distt. Ambala.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for theappellants.

                   Mr.Munish Goyal,Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

                   Mr.Mayank  Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

 

First Appeal No.458 of 2018

Date of institution:27.03.2018

Date of final Hearing: 21.02.2023

Date of pronouncement: 20.03.2023

 

Labh Singh S/o Sh.Badlu Ram, R/o Gali No.7, Ward No.27, Shanti Nagar, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar Distt. Kurukshetra.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. M/s Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd., 9^th K.M. Stone, Village Khuddi, Ambala Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.Duistt Ambala through its proprietor/Manager.
2. M/s Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd. Village Umri, NH-1, G.T. Road, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
3. Honda Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kashna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) through its Managing Director.
4. Honda Car India Limited, 409, Tower-B, DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi.
5. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Civil Lines Arya Chowk, above OBC Bank, Ambala City, Distt. Ambala.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. Munish Goyal, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.S.R.Bansal,  Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                   Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

          Mr.Mayank Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5.

First Appeal No.548 of 2018

Date of institution:27.04.2018

Date of final Hearing: 21.02.2023

Date of pronouncement: 20.03.2023

 

Honda Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kashna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) 201306

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Labh Singh S/o Sh.Badlu Ram, R/o Gali No.7, Ward No.27, Shanti Nagar, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar Distt. Kurukshetra.
2. M/s Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd., 9^th K.M. Stone, Village Khuddi, Ambala Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. Distt Ambala.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Civil Lines Arya Chowk, above OBC Bank, Ambala City, Distt. Ambala.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Munish Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

                   Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this common order above mentioned three appeals bearing No.413 of 2018,F.A. No.458 of 2018 and F.A. No.548 of 2018 will be disposed of as all the appeals have been preferred against the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short ‘District Commission).

2.      Delay of 16days  in filing the appeal  bearing No.458 of 2018  and delay of 30 days in filing the appeal bearing No.548 of 2018 are condoned for the reasons stated in the applications filed for condonation of delay.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that on 25.12.2015, the complainant purchased a new car model mobillio De, of Brilliant Gold Metallic of Rs.9,10,000/- from opposite party (OP)  No.2, but, the OP No.2 issued invoice for a sum of Rs.8,50,500/-. As per the exchange bonus scheme, OP No.2 deducted a sum of Rs.25,000/- as discount and Rs.35,000/- as costs of old car.  He paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash to OP No.2.  The complainant got financed his vehicle to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/- from HDFC Bank Limited.  OPs No.1 to 4 offered a warranty for this vehicle for two years or the car having drivenupto 40,000/- kilometers. The complainant also got insured his vehicle from opposite party No.5 for the period w.e.f. 25.12.2015 to 24.12.2016.   However shortly thereafter, some manufacturingdefects were noticed by the complainant.  The vehicle in question was found to be consuming excessive fuel as there was some technical defects in the engine.  Faced with this problem, complainant requested the OPs to remove the defects from his car.  The engineers of OP Nos.1 to 4 checked the vehicle of complainant and  found it to be suffering with some manufacturing defects which could not be removed.  Therefore complainant requested the OP Nos.1 to 4 to replace his car, but  they did not pay any heed. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the present complaint.

4.      In its written version,OP Nos.1 and 2raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and territorial jurisdiction etc.   It was also alleged that the vehicle was received on 04.07.2016 by way of towing due to starting problem.  It was observed that rain water had entered in its engine due to its use in water logged road and thereafter the complainant had left the vehicle in the workshop with a promise to impart  further direction to get it repaired either from the insurance company or from his own expenses but nothing was heard rather letters were also  written to him either to take back his vehicle or to allow the works manager to get the job done on payment basis. The complainant has concealed defect about the lying of the car in the workshop at Kurukshetra.Thus there being no negligence ordeficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops, the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.      OP No.3 and 4 filed joint written version, alleging inter alia that the vehicle sustained damage purely due to the negligence on the part of complainant himself.  The severe problem occurred in its engine due to hydro static lock as it was driven in the deep water logged area.  On its inspection by the technicians at the service centre of the OP No.1, traces of water in the engine were discovered which had resulted in hydro static lock problem in the vehicle. Generally hydro static lock problem occurs when a liquid substance gets into the engine cylinder. Infact all this was due to negligence on the part of complainant. The vehicle carries a warranty, for a period of 24 months or 1,00,000 Kms whichever was earlier from the date of sale. In the owner’s manual provided to the complainant it is clearly advised for not to drive the vehicle in the deep water. The alleged fault in the engine can never be termed as manufacturing defect. No such complaint was ever reported by the complainant while driving the vehicle for almost 2400 Kms. There was no privity of contract between OP No.3 and complainant. The insurance company has not repudiated any part of his claims on the ground that the damage was due to some defect in the car and same was covered under warranty provided by OPNo.3, hence, not covered under insurance policy. The complainant was not entitled to claim any amount from OP No.3.

          On merits, it was denied that oil was leaking from the engine. It was also denied that complainant approached OP No.1 with a request to remove the defect in the car. It was also denied that OP No.1 to 4 checked the car and had told the complainant that there were some manufacturing defects with the car. Upon enquiry it was found that the issues reported with the engine arose solely on account of the negligent driving the vehicle in deep water logged area. The above said claim was rejected for being not covered under the warranty clause. Thus there being no negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs.

6.      OP No.5 also filed separate written version. It was alleged that  as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company do not cover any manufacturing defect in the car. The complaint  was pre-mature as till date complainant has never lodged any claim/informed to answering respondent regarding alleged incidence, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and present petition not maintainable.  Thus there was no deficiency  in service on the part of the answering OP.  All other allegations leveled in the complaint were also denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as prayed for.

7.      After hearing all the parties, the learned District Commission, Kurukshetrahas partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 26.02.2018, which is as under:-

“So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to the repair of car in question, so, the complaint of the complainant is allowed partly and we direct the OPs No.1 to 4 to remove all the defects alleged to be developed in the vehicle without any charges from the complainant within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under section Section 27 o the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be initiated against OPs No.1 to 4. The file be consigned to the record room.”

8.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P Nos. 1 and 2, OP No.3 and 4 as well as Labh Singh -complainant have preferred these appeals.

9.      The argumentswere advanced by Sh.S.R. Bansal, learned counsel for the appellantsin appeal No.413 of 2019 and  respondent Nos.1 and 2 in appeal No.458 of 2018 and respondent No.2 in appeal No.548 of 2018as well as Sh.Munish Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.1in appeal No.413 of 2018,appellant in appeal No.458 of 2018 and respondent No.1 in appeal No.548 of 2018and Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in appeal No.413 of 2018 and respondent No.3 and 4 in appeal No.458 of 2018 and appellant in appeal No.548 of 2018 and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4 in appeal No.413 of 2018, respondent No.5 in appeal No.458 of 2018 and respondent No.3 in appeal No.548 of 2018. With their kind assistance entire record of appealsas well as that of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of the parties have been properly perused and examined.

10.    It is not disputed that the vehicle was having some problem.  It is also not disputed that the vehicle had come to halt as the water had entered into the engine. It is also not disputed that there was no expert report to suggest that the car in question has some manufacturing defects. The plea of the complainant  that his vehicle used to consume excessive fuel due to some manufacturing defect in its engine, has to be believed as the opposite parties have not led any evidence to shows that complainant was negligent in driving the vehicle or the complainant drove the vehicle in deep water logged area.   Perusal of the file shows that there was defect in the engine of the car.  It is true that the complainant has left the car with OP No.1 and 2 for repair.   In view of the above, it is established that there was defect in the engine. The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant partly.

11.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the all of appellants stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.Hence, appeals bearing No.413 of 2018,F.A. No.458 of 2018  and F.A. No.548 of 2018 stands dismissed on merits.

12.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.              File be consigned to record room.

15.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.413 of 2018 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.458 of 2018 and F.A. No.548 of 2018.

 

20^thMarch, 2023       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)