Date of Filing: 13.07.

2012
Date of Order:29.07.2015
BEFORE THE DISTRI0
RESAL FORUM -I,
CONSUMER
R DIS
DISPUTES
HYDTDERABAD
SRI T.SIMHACHALAM. R.COM-
Smt. A.(Ch).LATHA KUMARI AM, B.Cone B.Ed., PGDCA, MEMBER
1.A., M.Sc. B.
WEDNESDAY THE 29TH DAY3/2012 2015

Between:
Consumer Case No44343/2012
1. Smt. Himabindu,
W/o. P.Ravi Kumar,
Aged about 30 years
Occ: Housewife,
Rep. by her SPA Holder Ravi
Slo. Late P.V.Sarma Kumar. P.
2 Ravi Kumar,
Slo. Late P.V. Sarma,
Aged about 32 years, Occ: Pvt.
Employee derabad Dis
Both are resident of
H.No.1-7-12
Flat No.109, Shanta Sriram,
Chippendale, Golkonda XRoads,
Musheerabad,
Hyderabad. Complainants
AND
1. QRANGE AUTO PVT. LTD.,
Represented by it's Managing Director,
Yelamanchili Rama Koteshwar Rao
Office is at 8-1-21/145, Tara
Hyderabad - 500008. Towers,
2. Honda Motor cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by ie's MD., Office at Plot No.1
Sector 3, IMT Manesar,
Gurgaon
Haryana 122050
3. Honda Motor cycle & Scooter India Pvt., Ltd.,
Represented by it's MD.,
# 19/5 & 19/6, 2 Floor, Kareem Towers,
Cunningham Road, Bangalore - 560052.
4. Sri Srinivasan Sanjeev S/o. Not Known,
Business Head Orange Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Office is at 8-1-21/145, Tara Towers,
Surya Nagar, Towli Chowki,
Hyderabad 500008.
5. Sri Naveen S/o. Not known,
Sales Manager Auto Pvt. Ltd.,
Office is at 8-1-21/145, Tara Towers,
Surya Nagar, Towli Chowki,
Hyderabad - 500008.

6. Sri Vikram Singh S/o. not known

National Sales Head,
Office at Plot No.1,
Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon,
Haryana- 122050.
..Opposite parties
 Balasubramanyem
nsel tor the complainant Ms.Raviirala
&Associates
Opposire paries
S l o rthe opposite parties M/s. Indus Law Firm,
1, 2 & 4

B Sri T.Simhachalam, Hon'ble

ORDERident on behalf of the bench)

1. Complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 too

direct the opposite paties to grant the following reliers.

(a.o award compensation of Rs 20.00.000/- for defective, negligent and

deficiency of services.
(b). To pay costs.

2. ne
complainant submitted in his complaint, the complainants both
are wife and husband. The complainant No.2 is a Special Power of Attorney
holder to the
complainant No.1. He has booked a Honda CBR 250R BSII
FRONT REAR DISK
Motor Cycle by paying a token advance of Rs.5,000/-
to the
opposite party No.1 to purchase the said vehicle for the sale
consideration of
Rs.1,93,655/- and requested to deliver the same on the
OCcasion of the Dussehara
i.e., on 06.10.2011. As per opposite party No.1's
assurance and promised them they were visited the office at Towlichowki
and paid the balance sale consideration of
Rs.1,88,655/- through
complainant No.2's credit card to opposite
party No.1 and he delivered the
said motor cycle to the
complainants at about 1.15 p.m. After
receiving the
vehicle they were went on to ride the vehicle to
go to their home as their
relatives were
gathered to see the vehicle of the
complainants as they were
invited them to their house to see the vehicle. But to their
surprise the
vehicle was broken down at about 1.35
pm., due to some technical problems
at Banjara Hills. Immediately complainants called opposite party No.5 who is
the Sale Manager of the opposite party No.1 by his phone and he cannot
come and rectify the problem till 3.20 p.m., and also
advised to the
complainants that at Road No.1 there is Orange Chevrolet showroom to take
the vehicle to the said show room.
 After 3 parties came with
new
p.m., one of tne 0pposite
battery and
employee of he

battery of thevehicle..
changed the same existing
inn nlace
After changing the taken the vehidieto his
attery second inant has
home from the place of comp volate was a b o about 8 Km from the
sad
Orange
show room to his home efore
befo. the relatives it did
and tried vehicle

start the
toSlart the
not even his ,relatives have passed
ignite and ould not which

started,
ed, due
due
to

several statements and members. The

comments of all his family
front O
ents in front
opposite parties has taken when second
complainant
away motor bike
ay the motor Dn

was in office i.e., and promised to hand

on
07.10.2011 "
to rectify the problem
Over the vehicle on 07.10.2011 in the evening before 5-00 p.m. The second

complainant has called opposite party No.5 and No.1 several times but both
of them have not lifted the phone calls and made some body to call to the

Complainant with deferent mobiles and humiliated several times in the

Telephone. It shows negligent attituda of the opposite parties. Ater ral

phone calls and emails to the opposite parties they did not any response.

Vexed with the attitude of the opposite naries the complainant got issuea a

legal notice dt.26.05.2012.

It is further submitted that the act of the opposite parties is nothing but a

sheer criminal act deceiving its customers. The had

complainants undergone
mental agony, humiliation on account. If such reckless people are left Scot

free, there is every possibility of causing many more damages and health

hazards for the innocent purchasers. As such the complainant, claims a

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the opposite parties for their

defective, negligent and deficiencies in providing their services to the

legitimate consumers who approach them with a fond hope to have good

quality and quantum of vehicles by spending handful money. The opposite

parties acts and attitudes would have cause great loss and effects the health

of the innocent purchasers which shows gross negligence, defective

dereliction of duties and deficiency on part of opposite parties and as such the

opposite paties are liable and punisnaoe under law. Hence, the complaint.
 ed

&
4
is he
ail
3. Opposite party Nos. 1

complainant.
Vitten Version denying
allegation made by the and 6he
posite party No.1 is the authorized
3

lee of opposite p a r t i e s
2 &
opposite party
ste
party NoNo.4 is the Business
and opposit
No. ang
party
Head 0 the
5
opposite
n e
pa opposite

Maplticturers ofthe Honda Motorcyc & Scooters

party No.2 & 3 are the

Fo th the opposite party No. 1

o r g a n i z a l i o n

tis an
opposite party No.5 left

admitted fact that the

Complainant has purchased
BR
250R BSII FRONT REAR DISK Motor
ation
Cycle bearing temporary
gistratio

No.APO9UR TR6220 from his client on

to give the
delivery on 06.10.2011 and
and he quested

29.09.2011
accordingly the same was de
iered honouring his
sentiment. It is false to say
dow
Own
was
oroken
due to some
that, the vehicle techn
chnical problems
vehic,
the In
immediately after eceiving fact, the complainant was made

aware that the petrol in the

tank wouia only cover
tank wou}
few kilometers and as sucn,
he shall have to get etrol fillea
the pe mmediately. Obviously, the complainant
did not get the petrol filed
which
which resu
esuted in stoppage of the vehicle but not

the break down. With regard to ne

complainant allegation that they have
bike whic
bike wi s
purchased useless motor broke down on first day only on the

road which caused mental aguy aagreat humiliation before the relatives

which cannot be compensateu y anyway by the opposite parties for the

deficiency of service given by e o the complainant which is a blatant false

statement apart from vague and ncomprehensible.

It is further alleged that, tne duoect vehicle was in perfect condition, due

to the negligence of the complainant in not filling up the petrol and frequent

button start due which the battery came down and because of the act done by

the complainant and further has made several allegations upon the opposite

parties is not true and the second complainant again called opposite party

No.5 at about 7.06 pm., informed the situation of the vehicle and its condition.

It's also true that the opposite party has promised him that next day morning

he will send somebody to complainant's residence and gave assurance to

resolve the issue. But it is blatantly false that the opposite party also stated if
the problem will not rectify the replacethe ne
20lace the new motovehigle

of the same kind in

opposite P
e
parties

thmitted that the opposite party

place of old
ne It
did
but did
has promised that his
employee A only
attend
Only but not make aný).
Shall
with party shall attend, to any
promise regard to time and Opposite
e
the
requirements of his clients withas ingle call but due to overeenthusia[m of the

ng on 07.10.2011 at 8-00 am.

complainant, he again calle in the early morning

to opposite party No.5 as

Thecomplainant has madesseveral messages

text
but there is no reply
hewas notlifting the phone alls of econd
complainant
there is absolutely no defect
from opposite parties. It is
reiterated that
uwhen
whe
does not arise. It is
in the said vehicle, the question of eplacing
renlacing the
tne vehicle

eite Darty
No.1 to 5 attitude the
further denied that, by seeing the opposite pa
Mr. Vijay and explained the
complainant has contacted service manage
problem of his vehicle and about the deficiency
o service made by the opposite

party No.5 and 1. It is totally denied that the said service manager has given

assurance that he will also look into the matter and as eariy aS possible he

WIll give proper service to the complainant vehicle otherwise they l l replace

the new vehicle in place of defected vehicle.

returned the vehicle two

It is further alleged that, opposite party No.1 have

before the Diwali to the complainant as the servicing

was completed to
days
with concocted mind, he has
the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. But
been re-iteratedly claiming that the vehicle was delivered without proper

03.112011, the opposite party is not aware of

service at Atofin Pvt. Ltd., on

such complainant is called upon to furnish the

details of the
the same and as

same. At any rate, the opposite party emphasizes that there was no problem

vehicle. The opposite party is unaware that at evening the

with the subject
second complainant for some clarifications
service center person called the

Mr. Raju. When complainant No.2

and asked him to contact service manager

has contacted said service manager ne showed him that there was damage

in the petrol injector which was closeo Dy the opposite party No.1 Emceal

when the complainants gave for tng ipais at the time of getting the problem
 IS totally denied, had t h e r e been a
probleri n the
bike it could have been
the
mmediately after the delive ry vehice after
months. The opposite party ies total thatin servrvicing but not after 3
o he did not
di
disclosed the same
the.said
plainants nor corrected defect and
of the simply closed with emceal
andmediately in the presence service
f the said manager the
th complainants the
plaiaht took the photos defect which are
filing along vith this
comaht for the kind perusa of this Forum and
parties about
intimated to all the
the defect but
all were ere failed to opposite
rectify the sam
ame and issued a
receipt of future job a001.2012 1the complainant
vehicle and kept itt is.ts ne
No 2 is not using the
it in tact as

serviced bike with

complainant wish to keep aside the
AnfectS, tne entire case is
cooked up to
Opposite party and tarnish the good vall of the harass the

It is sub
company
ed that the COmplainant is seeking to
of blow the issue out
proportion ale
to make an illegal gain, despite
being the fact that
the initial
trouble caused nant s
to the complainar bike was
only due to his
and prayed that the carelessness
Hon'ble toru OE
pleased to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant filed his evidende diidavit
and got
marked Exs.A1 to A19
to prove their
case. The opposIE parties also filed their
evidence affidavit
and written
arguments. Both parues Tiled their
written
arguments and we
have heard oral
arguments.
. The Points for Consideration are:
1. Whether the vehicle in question suffered from any
defect? manufacturing
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite
parties?
3. If so, what relief?

6. Point No.1 &2: Both parties are residing within jurisdiction of this
Forum the complainant purchased the vehicle and took delivery of the
vehicle on
06.10.2011 and the complainant filed this complaint on

13.07.2012 within two

vears from the date of cause of action arose.

Therefore this Forum has aot torritorial jurisdiction the relief claimed is
 below Rs.20,00,0001- therefar
has got
efore this For teritorial:and
pecuniary jurisdiction to
in favour of decide the comp nt Hence, thys pomt is desioe
the
The
omplainant "inst
against the
opposite party.
following points are
The
admitted of P roved:

complainants booked CBR

CBR
250R BSI FRONT REAR DiSK
Motor Cycle by
paying Rs.5,000. token
ken advance
to the
opposite
No.1 and party
purchased the vehicle fora sale ideration of Rs.1,93,65
and took
a sa
delivery of the vehicle on 011.
06.1020
Ex A9 is the
e-mail since beginning
corresponden n c e showS
of the
purcnase the vehicle is givina troihlas the bike got break down in road
after delivery when the on way to his home and the
complainant was
OPpOSTe party men came and
renlaced the new batery and
subsequently
aiso the same was
not functionina on the next day 07.10.2011 the

Engineer of the opposite

party visited the complainant's house and took
the vehicle back to their
service center and the opposSite party kept the
vehicle in their service center
more than 14 days and the opposite party
also sent email dated
21.10.2011 stating that "we thank you for visit our
website and sharing your concerns. We are looking into the matter
and shall be getting back to you shortly. We request you to bear
with us till such time". As per Ex.A10 future job sheet shows the
complainant paid Rs.12,000/- towards Fuel Cock and purchases
Rs.2,000/- in total Rs.14,000/- he paid to the service center the
complainant purchased the vehicle on 06.10.2011 within two months he

spent Rs.14,000/- for effecting repairs as per the email correspondence.

Ex.A9 clearly shows since begining, the vehicle is giving troubles and the
complainant also requested the opposite party to take back the vehicle

and substitute the new vehicle in the place of the vehicle already supplied
by the opposite party. The complainant paid approximately Rs.2,00,000/-

and purchased the vehicle but since ne date of taking delivery of the

vehicle the same is giving trouDEs, Immediately after purchase of the

 vehicle he requested the onosite party to provide the new vehcie in he

O d vehicle but the ceposite party failed to provide the vehicie and

7Ected repairs and handed over the same to the complainant as per
Ex A9 it is
clear the the
Engin the opposite party took the vehicle on

d a y after purchasing the yehicie ie 07. 10.2011 and the vehicie was

refained with the service center of the opposite party for more than 14
and after long
corespandence they delivered the vehicle to tne
mplainant and subsequentiy Ex A10 also shows that on 3001 2010 the
Complainant spent more than Rs 14,000/- for the new vehicle for
effecting
repairs. As per the
Judgment reported in
2013 (1) CPJ
203 Bajaj Auto Ltd, others Vs. Anurag Kapoor
Where in is was
a
held that "

person purchases a new vehicle

only for his
convenience and not to suffer
the inconvenience and
reported visits to the work
shop and frequent
of the
vehicle due to
deprivation of the use
such
snags.
This
clearly depicts that the vehicle was
manufacturing defects. having some
Otherwise, the
gone to the
complainant would not have
opposite party's service status."
The above
Judgment is applicable to our case
case on the claim in our
hand also the
complainant apparent the
immediately after purchase on the same opposite party
date and also
Therefore, it is clear the vehicle ambiguity.
is
six months he manufacturing defect and within
got issued a
Legal Notice, dated
requesting the 25.05.2012 Ex.A12
opposite party to provide new
vehicle in the
vehicle. The place of old
complainant paid nearly
vehicle with an intention to Rs.2,00,000/- and
use a vehicle
purchased
for a
after took long period but
delivery of the vehicle the same is immediately
per the material
giving troubles. Therefore, as
clearly shows that the
because his
complainant mentally suffered a lat
spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/- and he purchased the
but the same is new vehicle
giving troubles. Therefore,
instead of the
directing the
 opposite party to effect feel it is just
repairs of the
the
ehicle.
We a and

reasonable to direct the alubstitute a new vehicle in the

opposit
Osile arty
place of old vehicle after or to pay the cost of
aking back
vehicle
he o l d

the vehicle after taking from the complainant and to pay

back the
he vehicle
compensation of Rs.5,000/ Rs.2,000/- rest of the claim is

dismissed
and Costs o
Point No.lll: In the
result, the wed in part directing the
Dlaint i s a l l o w

complaint
opposite parties 1 to 6 jointly and able:
severally a
To substitute new old vehicle.
vehicle after
taking the
"ler taking

(or)
To pay the cost of Rs.1,93,655/- (Rupees ne Lakhs ninety Three

thousand six hundred and fity five only) after taking back the old

vehicle.
(i) To pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) and

(i) pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Runees Two thousand only).

For compliance, 30 days time is granted.

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us

on this the 29 day of July, 2015.

Sd
MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
-NIL-

Exhibitsmarked onbehalf ofthecomplainant

Ex.A1: Copy ofthe RC issued by the AP Transport Dept.
Ex.A2 Copy of the receipt issued by Opposite party No.1 for Rs.1,88,655/-,

dt.29.09.2011.
Ex.A3: copy ofthe delivery chalan, dt.06.102011
Ex.A4: Invoice,dt.04.10.2011.
Ex.A5 Insurance paid to IFFCO-Tokyo dt.04.10.2011
Ex.A6: Invoice dt.04.10.2011.
Ex.A7: Telephone bill ofsecond complainant
 10

Ex.A8 Text messages

ent
through
One to opposite parties from
rernt uit
06.10.2011 to 28.01.2012.
parties
Ex.A9 e-mails send to opposil
arty No.1 dt.30.01.2012.
Ex.A10: Job slips from Opposil
d e f e c t on
ehicle
(No. in 7)
Ex.A11: Photos ofthe
ExA12: Legal Notice, dt.25.05.2014
ExA13 Postal receipt.
Ex.A14 Acknowledgments (NO.
Ex.A15: DVD of all the sages maiis, phone bills, photos.
Ex.A16 Medical Prescristion dt. 0.01.2012
Ex.A17: Special Power of Attorney, 23.05.2012.
Ex.A18: Invoice, dt.17.10.2012.
the Opposite parties
ExA19: Reply noticeis ued by t dt.09.07.2012. veers

Exhibits marked on behalf of the POosite parties

Nil.

sdl
MEMBER PRESIDENT

4342
R I C T PORUM HYDRRADAD

J.ta
nn..Z

Promuun
ecd 2 4 8 4

e
rder Cmp.2-
Rzu Partg2R!
DiS no .594 rder
Made

Deltver
cltu
ihe

}pn.

th
278
d e r
te:
alivered

A/AA A