Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/390

PRIME HONDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRATEEK JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                 Date of Decision: 09.09.2015

First Appeal No. 390/2011

(Arising out of the order dated 10.06.2011 passed in complaint case No. 725/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092)

In the matter of:

Prime Honda

Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No.1, Opp. Mother Dairy

Patparganj Industrial Complex

Delhi-110092                                           Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Sh. Prateek Jain

R/o 70, Kiran Vihar

•  

 

2. Manager/CEO

M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.

Plot No. A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur

Kasna Road, Industrial Development Area

Greater Noida

GB Nagar (UP)

 

3. M/s Pearl Honda

Kapsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

H-153, Sector 63, Noida

GB Nagar (UP)                                     Respondents

                                                               

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                         -                       Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         The OP-2/appellant (M/s Prime Honda) herein has impugned the orders dt. 10.06.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East) Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092. Vide impugned orders the following directions have been passed by the Ld. District Forum:

 

“Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case we hereby quantify the amount of the compensation as Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lac fifty thousand only) compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering inclusive of the litigation cost.

we hereby direct

1. The Prime Honda Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) is to replace the Honda City ZX with a new one along with fresh warranty or it shall pay Rs. 7,53,493/- together with interest @ 12% from 28.04.2008 to till the date of the realization to the complainant. It is made clear that the old car shall be delivered to OP-2.
2. The OP-2 shall pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as the compensation for mental agony and suffering inclusive of the litigation charges.”

 

2.         Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Honda City ZX Car from OP-2/appellant for an amount of Rs. 7,53,493/- on 28.04.2008. Grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle was not functioning properly. There was a problem in left front suspension noise, left side pulling, steering assembly, car turning problem, fuel tank faulty, tyres faulty etc. The complainant informed the Manager/CEO M/s Honda Siel Car India Ltd. (OP-1) verbally. Nothing was done. Complainant visited the service centre of the OP-2 & 3 on 28.04.2008. Defects of the vehicle were rectified. Complainant was assured that there would not be any problem in future. Contention of the complainant is that there was a trouble in the vehicle on 27.03.2009, 27.07.2009, 23.10.2009, 31.10.2009, 14.11.2009, 03.04.2010 and 02.06.2010. Nothing was done by the OP. A letter dt. 08.05.2010 was sent by the complainant to the OP-1. Contention of the complainant is that he did not receive any satisfactory reply. He finally sent a legal notice dt. 27.05.2010 to the OP-1.
3.         Defence raised by the OP-1 before the Ld. District Forum was that the vehicle in question had done 31006 km in a span of two years. It was still being used by the complainant. OP denied if the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. The vehicle was checked and none of the defects pointed out by the complainant was found. Plea taken by the OP-2 was again the same in that OP-2 too denied the existence of any manufacturing defect. OP-3 is the person who repaired the vehicle. He denied if he had any role in the manufacturing of the vehicle.
4.         Ld. District Forum vide orders impugned, observed that the complainant faced problem in the vehicle on 27.03.2009 and 27.09.2009. Beside this, the vehicle was not functioning properly on the dates mentioned in Para 6 of the complaint. On the basis of these observations only, Ld. District Forum passed the directions reproduced above. No findings have been given by the Ld. District Forum on the existence of any manufacturing defects or otherwise in the vehicle in question. Perusal of the Job Cards and the complaint shows that the defects mentioned at these two places are different from each other. The Ld. District Forum has not even indicated the problem leading to the manufacturing defect. In the absence of any speaking order, we find it difficult to agree with the directions given by the Ld. District Forum to the OP-2. Orders dt. 10.06.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum are, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Ld. District Forum to hear the parties afresh and give its findings on the point as to whether the vehicle had a manufacturing defect or not. Parties to appear in the Ld. District Forum on 07.10.2015. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
5.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
6.         One copy be sent to the District Forum concerned.
7.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(S C JAIN)

144616126.  
6.