State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jatinder Singh Madan vs Honda Seil Cars India Limited on 16 April, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.302 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 23.02.2007.
Date of Decision: 16.04.2012.
Jatinder Singh Madan S/o late Sh. Surinder Singh Madan, Proprietor M/s
G.N. Associates, 1, The Mall, Lawrence Road, Amritsar (Punjab).
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Honda Seil Cars India Limited, Plot No.D-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-
Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District
Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) Pin-201306.
2. Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Limited, G.T.Road, near Bye Pass,
Amritsar.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
11.01.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, for Sh. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for Ms V.A. Talwar, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Jatinder Singh Madan, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents, on the grounds that he is proprietor of G.N. Associates and First Appeal No.302 of 2007 2 purchased a Honda Seil GXI car, Model GXi 1.5 MT from respondent no.2 vide invoice no.00163 dated 16.09.2005, bearing Chassis no.MAKGO 852 T 5N 233705, Engine No.215 A 30061960, colour Royal Ruby Red. Entire price of the car was paid. The said car carried warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000 kmts. whichever is earlier. The car was registered in the name of M/s G.N. Associates, 1, The Mall, Lawrence Road, Amritsar, bearing registration no.PB-02-AP-8283 and road tax of Rs.10,300/- was paid in lumpsum.
3. Being impressed by its safety features, the appellant purchased the said car mainly for safety and security point of view, but after its first service at 1000 kmts., power steering of the car jammed and became heavy and the appellant was stranded far away from his place of residence at 9.00 p.m. in the night. The car was not in a position to be driven or taken to the workshop. The appellant suffered lot of pain and agony. Respondent no.2 was informed, who managed to bring the car to the workshop on 26.10.2005 and the car was delivered to the appellant on the same day in the evening. The appellant was informed that there was some problem in the software of the car and the technical snag has been removed. Believing the respondents, the appellant took the delivery of the car and started using the same.
4. A few days after it has run 1500 kmts., the same fault occurred again and the car could not be driven. The workshop people were informed, who took the car to the workshop on 07.11.2005 and the appellant was informed that some parts of the car needed to be replaced, but those parts were not available in the workshop. The person of respondent no.2 told the appellant that the parts will be available within 2/3 days and the car would be possibly delivered on 10.11.2005. On the morning of 8th, the appellant was informed that the car cannot be delivered on 10.11.2005, as the parts which required replacement, were not available at the factory of Honda and the appellant has to wait for 8/10 days to get the car back after repair. The car was delivered only on 16.11.2005 after replacement of steering wheel and gear box assembly.
First Appeal No.302 of 2007 3
5. After taking the delivery, the car developed similar snag again and it was taken to the workshop on 02.01.2006 and its steering gear box was replaced and the car was handed over on 09.01.2006. The car developed similar defect thrice which establishes that there is manufacturing defect in the car which is beyond repair. The appellant got a fear that in case he takes the car and the steering is jammed again, he will meet with an accident. The appellant also gave a note on the job card when he got delivery of the car.
6. Merely after 5 days of taking the delivery, on 14.01.2006 the power steering of the car collapsed again for the 4th time and the car had to be taken to the workshop on 14.01.2006 and EPS Cont. Unit, wiring harness and STG gear box, car checking U/W were replaced and he received the car under protest, by giving note on the job card dated 15.01.2006. The appellant could not use the car due to fear of accident and he is using taxi for commuting and has incurred huge expenditure.
7. The appellant has been representing to the respondents with his complaint and demanded a new vehicle, as the snag appeared third time, but nothing was done. Respondent no.2 offered a rebate of Rs.50,000/-, but the appellant insisted that the respondents should replace the car with a new one, but that was not done.
8. On 15.02.2006, the car again started giving noise from its steering wheel while turning and applying brakes and the car has to be taken to the workshop. On the development of the fault 5th time, the appellant insisted for replacement of the car, but the respondents refused. It amounts to deficiency in service on their part as well as unfair trade practice, and prayed that the respondents be directed to replace the car with a brand new car against the said car, to pay Rs.16,350/- on account of taxi charges, Rs.10,300/- on account of registration charges, Rs.24,346/- on account of insurance and Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation along with interest @ 18% p.a. First Appeal No.302 of 2007 4
9. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 & 2, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is based on fabricated facts. The appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complaint involves disputed questions of facts and law which can only be decided by the Civil Court. The defects narrated are not defects, but minor irregularities and the complaint has been filed with malafide intention. The relationship between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 is on 'principle to principle basis' and respondent no.2 is only the authorized dealer of respondent no.1. No technical/expert evidence has been led by the appellant to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
10. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant purchased the car from respondent no.2, based on his market research and goodwill of the car in the market. The snag, if any, reported in new car could be due to mishandling and rough driving by the appellant. Respondent no.2 attended the snags and corrected the EPS light glowing. Respondent no.1 in order to satisfy the appellant agreed for replacement of gear assembly. The appellant continued to use the car and it is surprising that he is seeking replacement of the car, when the car in question is perfectly in roadworthy condition. Respondent no.1 or its dealer are always available to look into the complaints of the customers whether the vehicle is under warranty or not and the appellant should have no grievance. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
11. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
12. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that appellant Jatinder Singh Madan cannot be called as consumer of the respondents for the simple reason that the registered owner of the car is M/s G.N. Associates and only the registered owner of the vehicle can file the complaint and appellant Jatinder Singh Madan being not a First Appeal No.302 of 2007 5 consumer, is not entitled to file the complaint, and dismissed the complaint. It was further observed that the registered owner of the car i.e. M/s G.N. Associates is not precluded from availing remedy available to it under the Act or any other law.
13. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2007, the appellant has come up in appeal.
14. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. The District Forum dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the appellant Jatinder Singh Madan is not the consumer, as the registered owner of the car in question is M/s G.N. Associates. The appellant filed the complaint as proprietor of M/s G.N. Associates and as per the certificate of the HDFC Bank Limited, the appellant Jatinder Singh Madan is the proprietor of M/s G.N. Associates. A proprietor of a concern is competent to file the complaint on behalf of the concern. Mentioning of the concern first or after the name does not make much difference and it was highly technical on the part of the District Forum to just dismiss the complaint, observing that M/s G.N. Associates is the consumer, forgetting that M/s G.N. Associates is proprietorship concern of Jatinder Singh Madan, appellant and of none else. Therefore, the appellant is competent to file the complaint and the complaint is very much maintainable.
16. Admittedly, the appellant purchased the car from respondent no.2. The version of the appellant is that just after first service at 1000 kmts., the power steering jammed and he was stranded and the car was taken again and again to the workshop for repair and it has the manufacturing defect. As per Ex.C-4 on 26.10.2005, when the car in question had run 1490 kmts., it was brought to Lally Motors Limited, G.T. Road, near Bye Pass, Amritsar with the complaint of EPS light glowing, which was rectified. Vide Ex.C-5, on 07.11.2005 when the car in question had covered 2101 kmts., it was again First Appeal No.302 of 2007 6 brought to said Lally Motors, with the complaint of 'steering very hard' and the same was again repaired without charging any amount, as it was under
warranty. Again vide Ex.C-6, on 16.11.2005 when the car had run 2213 kmts., it was brought to said Lally Motors with the complaint of 'steering wheel becomes very heavy' and the same was replaced and box assembly, power steering gear were also replaced under warranty. Similar problem again arose on 02.01.2006 when the car in question had run 3872 kmts. and the same defects were rectified vide Ex.C-7 and the appellant took the delivery, subject to smooth running of vehicle. Vide Ex.C-8, the car was again brought to Lally Motors on 14.01.2006 when it had run 3393 kmts. with the complaint of '4th time steering hard' (power steering failure) and parts were replaced and the car was received by the appellant under protest. Vide Ex.C-9 on 15.02.2006 when the car had run 5160 kmts., the noise was coming while braking, turning and the same was rectified. Documents Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-28 show the various correspondence, e-mails and the payments made for taxi etc. Ex.C-29 is the job card dated 16.03.2006 at 0 kmt. when the complaint of 'steering wheel hard' etc. was made.
17. To rebut this evidence, the respondents have tendered the affidavit of S. Ramaswamy Ex.R-1, which is nothing but the repetition of the written statement of the respondents.
18. From the very beginning, the car purchased by the appellant had developed defects in the steering wheel assembly and other defects, as mentioned in the above job cards. The car was purchased by the appellant in the year 2005 and it is still with the appellant and there is no evidence that it is lying stationary in some workshop or is stationary at the place of appellant.
As such, there is no question of replacing the same. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Maruti Ugyog Ltd. versus Sushil Kumar Gabgotra & Anr.", II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC), only the defective parts can be replaced. The appellant has also spent huge amount on taxi etc. and was First Appeal No.302 of 2007 7 not able to enjoy the said car and has also undergone mental stress and agony and for that, the respondents are liable to pay compensation.
18. In view of above discussion, the order of the District Forum is against the facts and evidence on record and is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order dated 11.01.2007 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant is allowed and the respondents are directed to replace the steering wheel assembly and other connected parts, as mentioned in the above job cards and to ensure that the car in question becomes roadworthy. The respondents are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) each to the appellant for mental harassment, torture and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as litigation expenses.
20. Compliance of the order shall be made by the respondents within two months of the receipt of copy of the order.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.04.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 16, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)