KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 710/06

JUDGMENT DATED: 29..2..2012

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

1. M/s Honda Siel Cars(India) Ltd.,                             :APPELLANTS

    Plot No.A.-1, Sector 4/41,

    Greater Noida Industrial Dev.Area,

    Gauthum Budh Nagar, U.P., 201306.

2. M/s Patel Cars Pvt.Ltd.,

    NH - 47 Aroor Vyttila Bye Pass Road

    Maradu, Kochi – 682 304,

(By Advs. Menon and Menon)

                 Vs.

M.Unnikrishna Menon,                                         : RESPONDENT

Pranavam, Paliyam Road,

Thrissur -1.

(By Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/manufacturer and dealer in CC.189/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellants are under orders to rectify the defects of the car free of costs and  in case the defect cannot be rectified to replace the vehicle with a new one and to pay  cost of Rs.2000/-.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the Honda City Car on 3.12.04 for a sum of Rs.7,29,633/-. According to him due to the defective break system the car met with an accident on 3.2.05  as the vehicle stopped only after dragging for 20 meters when the car was running at a speed of 60 to 70 KMs.  The vehicle entrusted with the opposite party was returned after repairs on 25.2.05.  Even thereafter the car could be stopped after applying sudden break only after dragging about 20 meters.  It is alleged that the problem is a manufacturing defect.  The complainant has sought for replacement of the car or return of the purchase price as well as compensation.

          3. The opposite parties have filed version disputing the allegations. It is contended that there is no defect with the break system. The Automobile Research Association of India has granted certificate of compliance of the specifications under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and hence the contention that there is manufacturing defect cannot be sustained.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 DWs 1 and 2Exts.A1 to A6, B1 series and B2.

          5. It was brought out in evidence that the vehicle collided with an autorikshaw and the driver of the autorikshaw died.  The case has been charged against the car driver.  The Forum has noted that prior to the above incident there was no complaint with respect to the break system vide B1 series job cards.  As per Ext.A6 report of the expert commissioner which was proved by him as DW3 the commissioner has noted that on abrupt breaking it drags the distance of 4.15 meters when driven it 30KM speed and 8.05meters when driven at 40KM speed and 25.1 meters when driven at 65KMs speed and at another instance on breaking it dragged 21.75 meters when driven at 65 KMs speed. He has reported that the break system was working but on abrupt breaking vehicle drags. According to him the same can be due to design fault of the vehicle coupled with breaking system. He has also observed that it is possible to drive the vehicle with the present breaking system but is unsafe.  The Commissioner has also noted that on the date of his inspection ie 3.3.06 the vehicle had plied upto 20161 KMs.  It has also to be noted that the complaint has been filed on 12.4.05 ie after 4 months of purchase.

          6. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that on abrupt breaking every vehicle will drag due to the principle of deceleration.  The same has been admitted by the commissioner in the cross examination, it is stated. We find that the above explanation appears not correct as with the updated technology  this much of dragging or skiding would not be there.  It has also to be noted that the vehicle is a luxury/costly vehicle. All the same we find that 7 years have elapsed since the date of purchase and 20161 KMs was run within about 1 year. Further so long the vehicle was in the possession of the complainant. There is no case that he was not using the vehicle so far.  In the circumstance we find that the direction to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price would work out injustice.  There is no evidence as to present state of affairs of the vehicle. In the circumstances the order of the Forum as to the defect of the car is sustained. All the same the decretal portion is modified as follows: The opposite parties will pay rupees one lakhs towards compensation to the complainant with interest at 6% per annum from 12.4.04 till realization.  The complainant will also be entitled  for cost of Rs.5000/-

          7. The opposite parties will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% form 29.2.12 the date of this order.

          8. In the result the appeal is allowed as above. 

          Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

ps