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

========

Savita Jerath, resident of House No. 2200, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  M/s Harmony Honda, Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 67, Industrial Area Phase-II, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.

2.  M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kansa Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area (NOIDA), District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP)through its authorized representative.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                 PRESIDENT

                                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by:     Sh.K.K.Jerath, Authorised Representative of Complainant.

               Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP-1.

                Sh.Karan Nehra, Counsel for OP-2.        

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,  MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant purchased Honda City GXI MT Car from OP No.1 on 29.2.2008 for a sum of Rs.7,23,500/- vide Ann.C-1, having warranty valid upto 29.2.2012 vide Ann.C-2. The vehicle was got serviced regularly from OP-1 from time to time. It is averred that the vehicle was having some inherent defects.  There was a manufacturing defect in the application of gears, which was noticed right from the very beginning. Since the defect was not rectified in the regular services, it was brought to the notice of OP No.2 (Manufacturer) vide letter dated 6.3.2009 (Ann.C-3) duly acknowledged by OP-2 vide letter dated 17.3.2009 (Ann.C-4), but the defect could not be removed by either of the OPs. It is also averred that on 3.10.2009, the vehicle suddenly stopped in the middle of the road, which was intimated to OP No.1, but it did not pay any heed. The complainant vide letters Ann.C-5 to C-7 requested the OPs to replace the complete Engine as it was having a manufacturing defect, though it was replied by OP-2 vide e-mail dated 15.10.2009 (Ann.C-8), but nothing positive was done. The complainant also replied the e-mail dated 15.10.2009 vide its  e-mail, Ann.C-9.  It was again brought to the notice of the OP No.2, that owning to a defect in the body of the Engine, the coolant leaked into the Engine head, was mixed-up with the Engine oil, that entered the cylinders of the engine, thereby causing damage to the whole of the engine. But the OPs replaced the Head Assembly only, which was strongly protested by the complainant.  Aggrieved by this, he wrote to the various functionaries of the OPs (C-10 to C-13) to redress his concern, but to no avail. The vehicle, after carrying out some repairs, was delivered to the complainant, after one month, on 10.11.2009 accompanied by retail invoice (Ann.C-14). Being dissatisfied by the repairs carried out by the OPs, he again took the matter with the OPs, communicated through various correspondences (C-15 to C-23), as the engine was not working upto mark, just as the vehicle suffered dip in speed and the operation of gear continued to cause trouble, but everything went unheard. Since the manufacturing defects in engine as well as the gear assembly, were duly brought into the notice of both the OPs through a series of correspondences referred above, but despite all, the OPs have failed to replace these parts and to make the vehicle defect free. The complainant also sought opinion from a technical expert to fortify his claim (Ann.C-24 – Page No.51-A & B), but nothing positive could came out of all these efforts.  Hence, this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       The OP-1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the vehicle was a perfect merchantable automobile which did not have any manufacturing defect, either at the time of its sale or thereafter. No such defect was ever noticed as and when the vehicle was attended to by the answering respondent. It has further been contended that there is no problem in the application of the gear and the same was communicated to the complainant after conducting a test drive along with him. The answering OP, while controverting the allegations of the complainant, rather contended that the vehicle was always attended to, most efficiently and effectively on receipt of every complaint. It has been denied that representatives of OP-1 have told that the said defect is due to a manufacturing defect. The OP No.1 pleaded that there is no need to replace the engine, as the vehicle is running properly/ perfectly after necessary repairs. It has been categorically explained that the vehicle was repaired as per the terms of the warranty.  Moreover, the engine of the vehicle consists of various components, if any problem exists in any particular part, then the relevant part of the engine is replaced to fix the snag. Thus there is no question of replacing the entire engine. The answering OP further contended that it had given detailed replies to the letters of the complainant. The OP No.1 pleaded that the complainant needs to prove strictly that there was any defect in the gear operation and dip in speed, after the repairs carried out on the engine. It has been submitted that after repairs vehicle was thoroughly tested, including the BHP of the engine. It has also been controverted/denied that there is any fall in the speed of the vehicle after repair. Rather pleaded that the vehicle was checked by their dealership/workshop and found no defect in it, either in the engine or in the gear operations. The answering OP has admitted that inspection of the vehicle was performed by the dealer of answering OP on 26.2.2010 and road test was also conducted, hence no abnormality either in the engine or in the gear was observed, which was duly shared with the complainant. It was further pleaded that during the pendency of the complaint, the vehicle in question was inspected on 10.9.2010 in the presence of the engineers of OP and as per the Inspection Report (Ann.R-1), the car & its engine was found to be absolutely OK. Moreover, the services rendered by answering OP (Ann.R-2), is a matter of record. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       OP-2 also filed reply and took defence almost on similar lines/averments, as had been taken by OP No.1, in its written reply, and had prayed for dismissal of the complaint

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and learned counsel for OPs and have also perused the record.

6]       The grouse of the complainant, in this complaint, is that the problem in the vehicle started soon after its purchase.  He also contended that even after changing of Head Assembly, the problem in the speed and gear assembly/box still persisted.  

7]       It is averred that admittedly the engine had a manufacturing defect, whereas the OPs are replacing only the Head Assembly, which is one of the components of the defective engine.  Therefore, when one of the component of the engine, has been found to be having a manufacturing defect, the whole engine needs to be replaced. Moreover, such contents, when brought to the notice of the OPs vide letters Ann.C-5 to C-7, the same were not refuted/rebutted by either of them; which amounted to an admission on their part. The OPs also not refuted that Head Assembly is not one of the component of the engine, therefore, when one of the component is found to be having a manufacturing defect, the whole engine was required to be replaced.   

8]       It is pleaded that due to the said manufacturing defect in the engine, the coolant got mixed up with the Engine Oil and subsequently entered into the cylinders, thereby damaging the whole of the engine, which is the main motive force, to drive the car.  Both the OPs, in collusion with each other, agreed to replace only one of the part of the defective engine i.e. Head Assembly.  But, even thereafter, the problem of dip in speed as well as defective gears continues to trouble the complainant.

9]       It is contended that despite repeated opinion of technical experts and the standard technical literature, nothing positive has come out.  Therefore, the OPs’ deficiency in service as well as indulging into unfair trade practice is writ large.

10]      On the other hand the OPs have vehemently rejected & denied the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle in question is having any manufacturing defect. More so, the Technical Opinion, submitted by the complainant is not the opinion of a qualified Automobile Engineer. The acknowledgements as well as reply to the letters of the complainant and the services rendered to the complainant, have been admitted by the OPs, as a matter of record (Ann.R-2). They filed reply, supported by an affidavit of Service Manager as well as Inspection Report (Ann.R-1), categorically stating therein that the vehicle in question was a perfect merchantable automobile, without any defect, in any part of it.  Above all, the complaints of the complainant, were always duly addressed & attended to, efficiently & effectively, as per terms of the warranty, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant (Ann.C-5 & C-6).  Therefore, there is no need to replace the engine of the vehicle, as it is running & functionally properly, after necessary repairs.

11]      Moreover, Ann.C-8 & C-9, are an after thought and have been cooked up later, to take undue advantage and wrongful gain.

12]      After careful perusal of the documents, placed on file by both the parties as well as considering the whole facts & circumstances, which gave rise to the present complaint, there are two types of documents, which are relevant to determine & clinch the whole matter, in order to reach to the conclusion.  These documents are (i) Opinion of Technical Experts (Page No.51-A & B, though mentioned as Ann.C-24 in the complaint, but not marked as such) and (ii) Inspection Report (Ann.R-1) as well as Vehicle Inspection Report (Ann.OP-2/1).

13]      Sh.L.D.Garg, ME (Mechanical Engineering) in its report, at Page No.51-A, has stated as under:-

“It is stated further that if the “Head Assembly” alone is replaced, the original efficiency of the engine cannot be restored. The efficiency of the engine is jeopardized because mixture of coolant and engine oil enters the cylinders and adversely affects the functioning of the engine.

It is stated that ………….. Based on my experience, I am of the considered opinion that when coolant gets mixed with engine oil, when the car is being driven, it is a manufacturing defect in the engine and the whole engine needs to be replaced. This is also necessary in the interest of safety of the users of the car where such engine has been installed.” 

14]      There is another report of Sh.Ravi Nandan Malhotra, BE (Mech. Engg.), in his Technical Report, placed on record by the complainant, at Page No.51-B, in the last para stated as under:-

“In my considered opinion, the gears had an inherent defect at the time of manufacture which is palpable during test drive. The replacement of gear assembly is the only solution to satisfactorily address the problem in the Car NO.CH04C 3945.”

15]      Whereas, the Inspection Report, placed by the OP No.1, on record as Ann.R-1, under the heading Observations, mentioned as under:-

“1. Engine Compression and Emission values found with in specification shows good health of engine & Electrical system.

2.  Others related parameters are also checked & found in OK condition & with in specification.

3.  No DTC (Diagnostic trouble code) shows roadworthy condition of vehicle.” 

16]      Another Vehicle Inspection Report, placed on record by OP No.2, as Ann.OP-2/1, under the heading Observations, states as under:-

“1. Engine Compression and Emission values found with in specification shows good health of engine & Electrical system.

2.  Others related parameters are also checked & found in OK condition & with in specification.

3.  NO DTC (Diagnostic trouble code) shows roadworthy condition of vehicle.” 

17]      The expert opinion filed by the complainant at Page No.51-A & 51-B prepared by Sh. L.D.Garg, ME (Mechanical Engineering) and Sh.Ravi Nandan Malhotra, BE (Mech. Engg.), who are well qualified and experienced persons, is more explicit, detailed, weighty, genuine and believable, in comparison to the report of OPs filed as Ann.R-1 & OP-2/1 Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the reports, referred to above, placed on record by the complainant. In view of this, it is held that the engine of the vehicle, in question required replacement.

18]      From the above analysis as well as facts & circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it is proved, beyond any doubt, that the vehicle in question is not performing well/upto mark and instead, giving problems, on one account or the other, from the very beginning of its purchase.  Resultantly, the OPs had to change the Head Assembly of the vehicle, but even then, the vehicle is not running smoothly/properly, rather giving frequent problems, one or the other, though it is still under warranty (Ann.C-2). This clearly proves that the car is suffering from some serious defects and on this account the complainant had to undergo a lot of physical harassment, mental tension as well as forced to enter into unnecessary litigation.

19]      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 selling a car to the complainant, which is having serious defects and giving frequent problems from day one, of its purchase.  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 replace the entire engine of the car in question, without charging anything from the complainant on account of replacement, repair or labour charges etc.  They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him great mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.

         This order be complied with by the OP, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 07.10.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

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