National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. And Ors. vs Divyang Jain And Ors. on 21 May, 2008
Equivalent citations: III(2008)CPJ17(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the order dt.20-2-2008 in First Appeal No. 32 of 2008 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. and others have filed this revision petition. The impugned order affirms the order of the District Forum, with a slight modification. The modification was that the period of warranty from the date of refinishing and completion of other jobs would be 2 years instead of 10 years, as directed by the District Forum.
3. The Complainant Divyang Jain paid a sum of Rs. 6,76,887/- to the petitioners and purchased a Honda City car and had it registered. Within a short period, after the purchase of the car on 31-3-2004, he noticed (February, 2005) that the paint of the car was fading. He approached the petitioners on 22-4-2005, 23-4-2005 & 25-4-2005 for corrective action but the petitioners' did not respond. Then he sent a legal notice on 28-4-2005 seeking refund of the cost of the car and some compensation. Later he filed a complaint in the District Forum. The petitioners had took the plea that when the complainant complained about minor defects in the dampers, the former had replaced dampers for all the cars of the same batch. But they denied any deficiency in service on account of fading of the color. During pendency of the complaint, the District Forum directed the petitioners to carry out an inspection of the car. After inspection the petitioners concluded as under:
Excessive pressure used for rubbing polishing/cleaning activity on edges leading to damage of the top coat of paint and exposure of E.D (Electro Deposit).
4. They further suggested the following remedy:
Paint re-finishing is required to bring the exterior to normal condition.
5. The District Forum held the petitioners guilty of deficiency in service and passed the following order:
(i) To carry out paint re-finishing to bring the exterior of the car to normal condition without any charges.
(ii) To issue fresh warranty in respect of re-finishing of paint as per directions No. (i) for a period of ten years (as per the expected life of the vehicles) without any charges.
(iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant, as casual and insensitive approach of O.P.s gave birth to this undesirable litigation.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners' submitted that the District Forum did not consider the fact that the damage to the painting of the car was due to abrasive action of external agencies which had resulted from the following:
(a) Rubbing polishing/cleaning activity on edges leading to damage of the top coat of paint and exposure of E.D (electro deposit);
(b) The swirl marks and hair-line scratches over the body of the car were due to abrasive action of external agencies/contamination; and
(c) The dust accumulated in the beadings and the Engine Compartment reflected dust abrasion on external surface while cleaning/polishing; the alleged problem of the fading of the paint of the car had crept in the vehicle on account of poor maintenance by the respondent.
7. The learned Counsel also argued that the evidence given by Mr. Satish Adhlakha of MGF, Hyundai, who had no experience regarding Honda vehicles, could not be relied upon.
8. In our view, the foregoing submissions cannot be accepted for the reason that a consumer purchasing an expensive car such as Honda City would be very careful in maintaining it. There is no evidence on record to prove that the respondent used any abrasive material, which ought not to have been used while cleaning or polishing his car. If, within one year of the purchase of a car, the car paint starts fading in the course of normal maintenance, it reflects nothing but substandard quality of the paint that was used ab intio. A mere accusation that the respondent has used excessive pressure while rubbing and cleaning activity on edges cannot be relied upon if, prima facie, the car paint has shown signs of fading during the warranty period. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission.
9. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.