DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 117 of 2022.
Date of hearing : 21.11.2023.
Date of order : 28.11.2023.
Dated the 28th day of November 2023.
Jatindra Mohan Panda, aged about 44 Years,
S/o:- Mayadhar Panda, At/Po:- Bahudarada,
PS:- Bhadrak (R), Dist:- Bhadrak. . . . . . Complainant.
- The Managing Director, Honda Motor Cycle &
Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Complex-II,
Sector-49-50, Golf Course Extension Road,
- The Regional Manager, Honda Motor Cycle &
Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Creative Plaza Building,
- The Manager Das Motors, Tahasil Road, Kacheri Bazar,
Bhadrak, At/Po/Dist:- Bhadrak. . . . . . Opp. Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant : Sri Basanta Kumar Mohanty, Advocate & Associate.
For the Opp. Parties : Sri G.C. Das, Advocate & Associates.
J U D G M E N T.
SMT. MADHUSMITA SWAIN, MEMBER.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief fact of the case is that, the complainant has purchased one Honda Unicorn Motorcycle from O.P.No.3 on 09.03.2021 for consideration of amount of Rs.1,13,000/-. After few days of use the motorcycle started to give starting problem. The complainant has availed the free servicing on 02.04.2021, 26.10.2021, 12.02.2022 & 28.02.2022 in all the servicing. The complainant has complain about the starting problem. The O.Ps checked the motorcycle every time and returned the motorcycle to the complainant after rectifying the problem. But the hardship on the complainant is that the problem of starting reoccurred after every service. Finally the complainant was compelled to write to the manufacturer i.e. O.P.No.1. The manufacturer apprising there about the faculty work of the case vehicle on 18.02.2022. O.P. manufacturing company being a leading two wheeler manufacturer of this country should have shorted this matter with prompted but they did not even reply to the letter dated 18.02.2022 of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has also served a legal notice to O.P.No.2 on 18.08.2022. The O.P. 2 however replied through his lawyer on 26.08.2022 and assured that they would provide best service as per their service manual and warranty condition even after receipt of reply from O.P. 3 , the complainant has visited his workshop but no fructiferous result yield the same starting problem is persisting in the case vehicle. On the other hand these O.Ps denies all allotments made in the complaint petition is false and says that under the terms & conditions of warranty policy the O.Ps are only to repair or replace the defective part. The O.P. 3 has given service to the complainant upto his satisfaction. These O.Ps file job card of 28.02.2022 & 02.06.2022 in support of their claim so the contention of O.Ps is that there is no deficiency in service further they also denies to the claim of the complainant for refund of consideration amount or in the alternative replacement of case motorcycle with new one. These O.Ps asserted that if only any part is found to be having manufacturing defect then only in their dispersion they would repair or replace the defective part under the warranty condition.
Having heard the contentions this commission frames the following issues for fair & just adjudication of the consumer complaint.
- Whether the case vehicle is having an inherent manufacturing defect ?
- Whether these O.Ps have committed any deficiency in service ?
- If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to get ?
It is evident from the service record and job card relied on both the parties that the vehicle has a starting problem the complainant has raised that point in every servicing at O.P.No.3. The service engineer of the O.Ps had also inspected the vehicle. As the starting problem persisted in the vehicle it can be say to be concluded that there are inherent manufacturing defect with regard to self-starter and starting of the vehicle. Further the complainant has filed one expert opinion with regard to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle from one Sudarsana Mohapatra who owns a Hero & Honda motorcycle workshop. So, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
So far as Issue No.2 is concerned when a person purchases a two wheeler for his daily commutation by expanding lakhs of rupees, he naturally expects the vehicle should be trouble free. In this instant case, the vehicle started to give starting problem within few days of its purchase and the defect pointed out by the complainant could not be rectified by these O.Ps even after several servicing & checkups. Under these circumstances, the O.Ps would have done well, they replace the spare parts under the warranty to short out the starting problem of the case vehicle. These O.Ps neither were able to remove the defects nor did they replace the faulty spare part hence it can be called out that these O.Ps have committed deficiency in service were signing any a printed form that is on the job card cannot a proved that, the complainant has taken the vehicle in full satisfaction after the repair.
The complainant is entitled to get replacement free of cost of the self-starter and other allied spare parts under the terms of the warranty particularly when the complainant is a pharmacist need the hassle free vehicle for his job. Due to the d efficiency in service, the complainant has to suffer with a defective vehicle. The complainant needs to be compensated. Further inconvenience he has suffered.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is allowed. The O.Ps re directed to replace the self-starter and other allied parts responsible for smooth starting of the case vehicle No. OD-22-S-9765 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The complainant is directed to produce the vehicle before the O.P.No.3 to facilitate the aforesaid spare parts of the replacement. If the O.Ps fails to replace the defective self-starter & allied parts within the stipulate time they shall pay Rs.100/- per day to the delay to the complainant. These O.Ps further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards inconvenience, harassment & mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 28st day of November 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.