Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/3223/2017

Ashok.H.T, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manufacturer, Honda Motors Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2019

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:15.12.2017

Disposed On:11.10.2019

                                                                              

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

 

    DATED THIS THE 11^th OCTOBER OF 2019

 

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

                          

                      

Complaint No.3223/2017

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT

Sri.Ashok H.T, S/o H.Thimmaiah, Aged about 43 years, Residing at 269, 7th Main, M.T.B Area, Jayanagar, 4th T Block, Bengaluru – 560 041.         V/s

OPPOSITE PARTies

1) Manufacturer, Honda Motors Pvt Ltd., Flat no.1092142, K.I.A.D.B, Narasapura Industrial Area, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District – 563 130.   2) Dealer, Saphire Honda, No.1320, 100 Ft. Road, 1st Cross, Sarakki II Phase, J.P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560078.   3) Service Centre, Silicon Honda No.50, R.V Road, Near R.V Teachers College, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.   Advocate for OPs.1 & 2 - Sri.S.A Sami.

                                       

 

O R D E R

 

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant prays to direct the OPs for replacement of new bike and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

 

The Complainant submitted that, he purchased the two wheeler Honda CB Shine 125 CC, bearing registration No.KA-05-JU-6186 from OP-2 on 03.06.2016 manufactured by OP-1.  The total cost of the said vehicle on road was Rs.76,339/- and the said vehicle hypothecated with HDFC Bank.  From the date of purchase of the said vehicle having manufacturing defect.  The complainant submitted that the above said vehicle has no initial pickup, jerking, while riding bike automatically rises.  Complainant visited the Silicon Honda Service Centre at Sunkenahalli, Hanumanthanagara more than 20 times for one year.  Even the bike problem not been rectified and the said service centre has been closed.  Again complainant visited the Silicon Honda Monotype Banashankari II Stage Branch.  They repaired the bike but the problem could not be solved.  Finally complainant visited the Silicon Honda Main Service Centre at R.V Road Branch.  Their also the said problem not rectified.  The complainant complained the same to Honda Motors, Customer Care.  Complainant did not get any proper response from their side.  Again complainant sent letter to OP-2 for replacement of new bike.  OP-2 has not responded to the letter.  That the complainant faced lot of mental torture for the said manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for replacement of the bike and claiming compensation.

 

3.      After service of the notice from the office, the OPs.1 & 2 appeared before this Forum.  OP-2 filed objections.  Despite service of notice OP-3 failed to appear before the Forum.  Hence OP-3 placed ex-parte.

 

On appearance OP-2 filed version and additional version contending that, the averments made in the complaint are all false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.  It is true that the complainant has purchased the two wheeler in question from OP-2.  That after the purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant, mechanical problems occurred to the said vehicle.  The complainant instead of coming to the OP-2 to get the said vehicle repaired went to OP-3 which is entirely different company.  That OP-2 has many service stations in Bengaluru, the complainant instead of approaching OP-2 to get the vehicle repaired if any, the complainant has chosen to go to a different company.  OP-2 is not responsible and not liable for the same.  The complainant himself was negligent on his part in proper maintenance of the vehicle.  That the complainant is not carried out servicing of the vehicle as per the service manual issued to him.  The complainant ought to have carried out the second free service of the vehicle immediately it runs 2500 to 3000 Kms but the complainant brought the vehicle to the OP-2 after the vehicle run 4081 Kms.  Similarly for the third free service, the complainant brought the vehicle after running 7537 Kms instead of 5500 to 6000 Kms as per the manual and for the fourth free service, the complainant brought the vehicle after running 11,723 Kms instead of 8500 to 9000 Kms as stipulated in the service manual.  Hence it clearly shows that the complainant has handled the said vehicle badly due to which the defects mentioned by the complainant might have occurred.

 

OP-2 further submits that, as per the owner’s manual the warranty clause clearly shows that the warranty does not apply in case the service of the vehicle has not been carried out as per the owner’s manual and as such on this ground alone the complainant is not eligible for any replacement of warranty in respect of the vehicle.  That the complainant has not produced any relevant records before this Forum to show as to how many times the complainant visited the OP-2 office for the repair of the vehicle.  OP-2 further submitted that, the complainant has made OP-1 as a party in the case who is not a necessary and proper party for the case as the OP-1 is not the manufacturer of the vehicle and as such the complainant committed mis-joinder of necessary party.  There is no manufacturing defects in the said vehicle.  The mechanical problems occurred to the said vehicle is due to the bad handling of the vehicle by the complainant and the same is not manufacturing defect.  The claim made by the complainant is false, flimsy, imaginary, arbitrary and without any basis.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.  Hence OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP-2 have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Complainant has submitted written arguments.  Complainant has produced documents which were marked.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OP-2 and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief sought for?

 

2.  What order?

 

7. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1:  In the negative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

8. On perusal of the pleadings, evidence and documents produced by both the parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant purchased two wheeler Honda CB Shine 125 CC, bearing registration No.KA-05-JU-6186 from OP-2 on 03.06.2016 manufactured by OP-1 for an amount of Rs.76,339/-.  The complainant reiterated both in the complaint and during the course of his evidence that there is a problem in the vehicle.  Inspite of several approaches made to OP-3, OP-3 not rectified the problem.  Hence complainant is entitled for replacement of brand new vehicle and compensation.

 

9. Per contra OP-1 & 2 submitted that, there is no manufacturing defect in the above said vehicle.  Complainant inspite of approaching OP-2 to get vehicle repaired the complainant chooses to go to a different company.  Hence OP-2 is not responsible and not liable for the same.  Further the complainant himself was negligent on his part in proper maintenance of the vehicle.  Further the complainant ought to have carried out the second free service of the vehicle immediately it runs 2500 to 3000 Kms but the complainant brought the vehicle to the OP after vehicle runs 4081 Kms.  Similarly 3^rd free service the complainant brought the vehicle after running 7537 Kms instead of 5500 to 6000 Kms.  Further 4^th free service the complainant brought the vehicle after running 11,723 Kms instead of 8500 to 9000 Kms as stipulated in the service manual.  Hence it clearly shows that the complainant has handled the said vehicle badly due to which the defects mentioned by the complainant might have occurred.

 

 

10. Looking into the background case of the complainant and defence of OPs, the main contention of the complainant is that the vehicle supplied by OP-2 which was manufactured by OP-1 is defective one and having a manufacturing problem.  In order to show the said defect the complainant has not produced any expert opinion unless until manufacturing defect is proved by independent technician or expert report.  The complainant who comes to this Forum seeking relief on the ground of manufacturing defect in the above said vehicle is become unsuccessful. 

 

11. Further as per Ex-A5 the complainant left for 2^nd free service on 30.11.2016 when vehicle runs 4081 Kms.  As per Ex-A4 service details it clearly mentioned that the second service scheduled to be 2500 to 3000 Kms and 3^rd service 5500 to 6000 Kms.  The complainant left the vehicle after running for 7537 Kms.  Further the 4^th service the complainant has to leave the vehicle for service when runs 8500-9000 Kms.  The complainant left the vehicle after runs 11,723 Kms.  On the above documents it clearly shows that the complainant has also not followed the user’s manual.  The complainant has left the vehicle for service his own whims and fancy.  It shows that the complainant is himself negligent in proper maintenance of the vehicle.  Further the complainant has not produced any independent expert report to prove that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect.  On the above discussions made hitherto complainant has failed to produce believable material evidence to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly we answered the point No.1 in the negative.

 

12. Point no.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

O R D E R

 

 

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  Parties to bear their costs.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 11^th day of October 2019)

 

 

 

   

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Ashok H.T. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of Aadhaar of complainant.
Ex-A2	Copy of driving licence of complainant.
Ex-A3	Copy of RTO challan for Rs.8,688/- dated 07.06.2016.
Ex-A4	Copy of Saphire Honda VAT Invoice dated 03.06.2016 for Rs.76,339/-.
Ex-A5	Copy of service record sheet.
Ex-A6	Copy of retail invoice for Rs.344/- dated 02.06.2017
Ex-A7	Copy of retail invoice for Rs.350/- dated 30.09.2016
Ex-A8	Copy of EW Invoice for Rs.639/- issued by HAD Motors Ltd., Bangalore.
Ex-A9	Customer copies two in numbers dated 30.09.2016 and 24.06.2016.

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of Opposite Party-2 by way of affidavit:

 

 

Sri.Shabreez Younus, who being the GPA holder of OP-2.   

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OP-2 - Nil

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

 

vln*