Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/415

Prabhjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarvpriya Honda - Opp.Party(s)

Gursevak Singh Adv.

14 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 415 of 30.05.2016

   Date of Decision       : 14.11.2019 

 

Prabhjot Singh Rai son of Sh.Gurcharan Singh Rai, resident of H.No.3180/143, Agwar Rara Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

Versus

1.The Manager/Authorized person, Sarvpriya Honda, Near Sherpur Chowk, G.T.Road, Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

2.The Manager/Authorized person, Sarvpriya Auto Pvt. Ltd. Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

3.The Manager/Authorized person, Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India (Pvt.) Ltd, Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana-122050.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Amandeep Singh, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT 

1.                          Complainant purchased Activa 3G bearing registration No.PB-10-FB-4287 from Op2 on 18.02.2015 and thereafter, this Activa was got serviced in the agency of Op1 from time to time. In January 2016, the complainant found some problems in the vehicle at the time, when it was under warranty. On 11.01.2016, complainant did show the vehicle to agency of Op1. Mechanic of agency found vibration and even problem in smooth driving. These problems persisted even after the vehicle brought by the complainant to the agency. On 12.01.2016, complainant again got repaired the vehicle from the agency of Op1. When these defects could not be removed, then complainant on 14.01.2016 again approached agency of OP1 for getting the vehicle repaired, so as to get the problems removed. On 19.01.2016, when complainant again took the vehicle to the agency of Op1, then two minor untrained boys serviced the vehicle and on asking by the complainant, they disclosed as if their job is only of washing the vehicles. However, in absence of regular mechanic, they even do the free services of the vehicle. These boys admitted as if they are not trained mechanics. Repair was not done to the satisfaction of complainant. Complainant snapped the photographs of those boys and prepared a CD of same. Complainant sent complaint to head office i.e. Op3, but no reply received. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops and by claiming that complainant suffered badly in business affairs, this complaint filed for seeking direction to Ops to replace the Activa in question with a new one. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written reply filed by OPs, it is claimed that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and permission required u/s 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before filing the complaint was not sought from this Forum and as such complaint is not maintainable. It is claimed that Op3 has no branch or office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such, complaint is not maintainable. Moreover, it is claimed that complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law with the purpose of harassing and pressurizing the answering Ops to succumb to unreasonable and mischievous demand. No cause of action alleged to have accrued to the complainant, more so when scooter in question duly repaired. Reported problems of meter noise and vibration were duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Obligation of Ops under warranty is to set right the scooter by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. However, after expiry of warranty period, repairs and rectification always done on chargeable basis. Scooter in question was mishandled by the complainant. Admittedly complainant submitted his scooter with Op1 on 14.01.2016 for free service, which was offered by Op3. Problems of meter noise, vibration and drive being not smooth, were reported. These problems alleged to have occurred due to mishandling of the scooter, but despite that those problems were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter, scooter delivered back to the complainant on 14.01.2016. Complainant put his signature on satisfaction note on job sheet of 14.01.2016. Performance of scooter depends upon the physical mishandling of the product, driving habits of the driver and the condition of road or terrain, on which, the scooter is being driven. No assurance for replacement of scooter was given. Specific irreparable manufacturing defect not mentioned and nor it is mentioned that quality of specific part was inferior. Authentic report of expert or qualified person from Central approved laboratory is not submitted and in absence of same, claim cannot be allowed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops, more so when Ops still ready to provide services to the complainant, but on chargeable basis, because warranty period of one year has already expired. Further allegations of complaint denied, but by claiming that scooter in question was duly serviced and defects removed on 14.01.2016 itself. Allegation regarding bringing of scooter on 19.01.2016 even denied. However, it is admitted that Ops received legal notice dated 22.01.2016. Due reply to that notice was given by Ops.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and also affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Boota Singh, the alleged mechanic and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Divesh Goyal, Director of Ops along with documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and again after tendering affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.Devesh Goyal, Director of Ops, counsel for Ops closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.         Purchase of Activa in question by the complainant from Op2 is not denied. This Activa was having warranty of one year is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.C3. Service Record sheet Ex.C4 shows that on 16.03.2015, 12.06.2015, 21.10.2015 and 10.01.2016, vehicle was taken for service and job carried out was of change of oil. This scooter travelled distance of 8609 Kms upto 10.01.2016. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the scooter in question, then certainly the scooter would not have travelled so much distance of 8609 Kms upto 10.01.2016. Even contents of job sheet Ex.R1 dated 14.01.2016 establishes that this scooter travelled distance of 8609 Kms upto 14.01.2016. Contents of Ex.R1 further establishes that Activa was brought on 14.01.2016 on complaint of customer regarding meter noise, vibration and not smooth driving. Certainly vibration after lapse of more than 10 months may occur due to rough driving or mis-handling of scooter or due to      driving the same on rough surfaces and bumpy road. These problems were removed on 14.01.2016 is the case of Ops and that fact is borne from the contents of job sheet Ex.R1. Complainant got back this Activa on 14.01.2016 by recording satisfaction note underneath  Ex.R1 and as such documentary evidence produced by the complainant establishes as if the defects of noise and vibration were removed to the satisfaction of complainant on 14.01.2016 itself.

7.                Complainant has produced on record affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Boota Singh, who claimed himself to be having experience of repairing and service of two wheeler vehicle     of 20 years. This Boota Singh through his affidavit Ex.CB claimed that after checking the Activa in question, he found manufacturing defect in it. What was the manufacturing defect in the Activa in question, details of said defect has not been given in the said affidavit. How one can discloses about the existence of manufacturing defect without specifying the particular defect qua that no explanation coming forward. No certificate of experience of Boota Singh produced and as such reliance on contents of affidavit Ex.CB of Boota Singh cannot be placed for holding that manufacturing defect in the Activa in question  exists. If manufacturing defect do not exist, then submission of counsel for Ops has force that in fact repair of Activa within warranty period was done free of costs.

8.                During course of pendency of this complaint, Ops got the vehicle checked from Sh.Kamaljeet Singh, Head Technician of Ops, who submitted his report Ex.R3 for claiming that there was no problem of vibration in the vehicle, but the breaks were tightened. This mechanic after checking the vehicle through test ride for nine kms has submitted this report and as such, this report Ex.R3 cannot be disbelieved, more so when complainant failed to establish by producing any convincing evidence that manufacturing defect in the Activa in fact exist.

9.                Legal notice Ex.C1 sent by the complainant through counsel was duly replied by Ops sent through Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate as revealed by copy of reply dated 02.03.2016 (Ex.R2) and as such present is a case, in which, Ops responding to the legal notice also, due to which, their case believable that as and when services sought, those were rendered free of costs. Defects of vibration or of noise are not as such defects, which cannot be removed and as such, those defects cannot be termed as manufacturing defects at all. Being so, entitlement of complainant for replacement of Activa in question with new one is not there, more so when manufacturing defect is not at all established. However, in view of the fact that those defects occurred within 11 months of purchase, due to which, Activa has to be taken to the agency on four occasions i.e. on 11.01.2016, 12.01.2016, 14.01.2016 and 19.1.2016 i.e. within the warranty period and as such it is fit and appropriate to direct Ops to repair the Activa in question free of costs for removing the defects of vibration or not smooth driving once. It is the case of complainant that two untrained boys/mechanics on 19.1.2016 repaired the vehicle, despite the fact that their job was only of washing the vehicle, regarding which, CD Ex.C7 is produced. That was a deficient service rendered by Ops and as such, complainant entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment, but of some reasonable amount and also to litigation expenses.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to Ops to repair the Activa in question of complainant once, free of costs for removal of defects of vibration and noise problem within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops, whose liability to pay the compensation amount and litigation expenses held as joint and several. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Jyotsna Thatai)                                               (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:14.11.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.