Haryana

Karnal

CC/128/2016

Susheela Devi W/o Mahaveer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Karnal Honda - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.128 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 29.04.2016

                                                         Date of decision:20.02.2018

 

Susheela Devi aged about 32 years, wife of Shri Mahaveer, resident of village Harisinghpura, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                 …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1.Rahul Karnal Honda, SCO no.7, Sector-14, Meerut Road, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

4. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Complex II, Sector 49-50, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018 through its Branch Manager.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Ms Veena Rani…….Member

             

 

 Present  Complainant in person.

                Shri Deepak Vohra Advocate for OPs.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased one Active-3g (SCVIIOF), 110 CC Engine white colour from OP no.1 vide retail invoice dated 15.1.2016 for an amount of Rs.49,352/-. The said vehicle is registered vide registration no.HR-05-AR-2932.  From the date of purchase of the said vehicle, same is not working properly as the same creates huge noise in the engine, vibration in the handle and gives “Jhatke” while the same plying on at the speed of 30-40 Kms per hour. The complainant took the said vehicle in the service station of OP no.1 on 16.1.2016. After checking the mechanic of the OP told that after plying the said vehicle on road for some time, all the abovesaid problems automatically will be removed. But the said problems did not remove from the vehicle. On 5.4.2016 complainant made complaint to OP no.2 through e-mail, OP no.2 registered the same vide ticket no.1-4020149281. Then the husband of complainant took the vehicle in service station of OP no.1 and the Engineer checked the vehicle but the defect could not remove. Then husband of complainant made complaint to OP no.2 on 13/15.4.2016. Thereafter, again vehicle took to the service station of OP no.1 and Engineer checked the same and told that the problems cannot remove at all. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OPs so many times and requested to replace the said defective vehicle with new one but OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to replace the vehicle in question. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has purchased Activa white colour from OP no.1 on 15.1.2016. The husband of the complainant on the next very day of the purchase of the vehicle i.e. on 16.1.2016 came to the office of OP no.1 and started saying that he and his family is not in linking of white colour and started to pressurizing OP no.2 to replace the same with black colour. The staff members of the OP no.1 tried to make understand the husband of complainant that as the bills have been issued and now it is not possible to change the vehicle as it has already sold in the record books. After hearing the same the husband of complainant started shouting loudly and also threatened that he will ruin the reputation of the OPs and nobody can top him to adopt any tactics for changing the aforesaid vehicle. On 9.2.2016 the complainant came to the premises of OP no.1 and made a lame excuse that there is vibration in the vehicle and so that as it is in the warranty and guarantee period, vehicle must be replaced. The vehicle of the complainant was thoroughly checked by the expert of the service station of OP no.1 and as there was no defect in the vehicle and so that the experts of service station of OP no.1 and as there was no defect in the vehicle and so that the expert of service station tried to make understand to the complainant and her husband, but all in vain.  Complainant made false complaint to the OP no.2 which was duly registered as per the norms of OP no.2 and even after then for the satisfaction of the complainant, the vehicle was again thoroughly checked in the service station of OP no.1. As there was no problem of any vibration so that how it was possible that the problem which is not in existence can be sought out. It is further submitted that after filing of the present complaint the vehicle of the complainant was again checked by the staff of service station on 14.6.2016 and even as there was no problem in plying of the vehicle and even then for the satisfaction of the complainant, belt was changed under warranty just to clear mis-conception of the complainant and the expert service engineers of OP no.1 did not find any fault in the vehicle. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 16.12.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Suhail Chopra Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 7.6.2017.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleading of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has purchased one Activa on 15.1.2016 for Rs.49,352/- bearing registration no.HR-05-AR-2932. According to the complainant, the said vehicle was not working properly as the same creates huge noise in engine, vibration in handle for which the complainant took the vehicle to OP no.1 on various dates but the said problems were not removed from the vehicle even inspite of complaints made to OP no.2. The vehicle is a defective vehicle and the defects cannot be cured. According to the OPs, there was no defect in the vehicle. Each and every time the vehicle of the complainant was checked by the expert of the service station and expert found no defect in the vehicle and tried to understand the same to the complainant and her husband but all in vain because the husband of complainant had threatened the OPs that he can adopt any tactics to change the Activa in question.

7.             To prove his case, the complainant produced documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6. The document Ex.C-3 is not readable. Ex.C-4 is the job card, wherein the problems were mention at the instance of complainant but in the repair advice column it is mentioned by OPs perfect. Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 are e-mail of the complainant about complaints to OP no.2. No other document has been produced by the complainant vide which it can be proved that the vehicle in question was a defective vehicle. From the job sheet dated 14.6.2016 Ex.R-2, it is clear that the OPs have specifically mentioned in it that “Belt changed under warranty just to clear the misconception of customer. There is no fault diagnosed by the service engineer of Honda. The vehicle is in perfect running condition.” The complainant also mentioned on this document Ex.R-2 that “problem is not solved”. In these circumstances of the case, it is clear that according to the complainant there was defect in the vehicle whereas as per OPs, the vehicle was in perfect running condition. So it has become necessary for the complainant to prove his case by cogent evidence i.e. evidence of the expert. But no such evidence has been produced by the complainant. Without any cogent evidence, it cannot be said that the vehicle has any defect. So in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has failed to prove the vehicle in question was a defective vehicle and also failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 20.02.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)     

                        Member