CC/14/98 1/6

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PUNE

New Administrative Building, B Wing, 04th floor,

Opp. Council Hall, Near Sadhu Vaswani Chowk,
Pune 411001
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Complaint Case No.CC/14/98

SHRI VALLABH GOVIND NATU, )

R/AT:- FLAT NO.201, CHABAI APARTMENT )
411, SHANAWAR PETH, PUNE 411030. ) COMPLAINANT

- : VERSUS : -

1. HONDA CARS INDIA LTD., )

ZONAL ADDRESS:- MUMABI ZONAL OFFICE )
D-126, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, )
MIDC SHIVANE, NERUL, )
THANE-BELAPUR ROAD, )
NAVI MUMBAI 400 706. )

2. HONDA CARS INDIA LTD., )

FACTORY ADDRESS, PLOT NO.A-1, )
SECTOR 40/41, SURAJPUR-KASNA ROAD, )
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL )
DEVELOPMENT AREA, )
DISTRICT GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR )
UTTAR PRADESH 201306. )

3. BAFNA AUTO CARS INDIA LTD., )

15, PUNE SATARA ROAD, )
OPP. SHANKAR MAHARAJ MATH, )
DHANKAWADI, PUNE 411043. ) OPPOSITE PARTIES

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
BEFORE :- HONBLE MR. V. P. UTPAT, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. ONKAR G. PATIL, MEMBER
HONBLE MRS. KSHITIJA B. KULKARNI, MEMBER
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
For the Complainant :- Adv. V. B. Pandit
For the Opposite Parties :-
Nos.1 and 2 :- Adv. A. R. Bhusari

For the Opposite Party No.3 :- Adv. Subodh Shah

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
CC/14/98 2/6

JUDGMENT

Per Honble Mr. V. P. Utpat, President

This is a consumer complaint filed under Section-12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by an individual consumer alleging
deficiency in service against the manufacturer and dealers of a four-
wheeler car. Facts giving rise to present consumer complaint can be
summarized as under:-

CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT

[2] Complainant is a resident of Shaniwar Peth, Pune. Opposite Party

Nos.1 and 2 are the manufacturers whereas, the Opposite Party No.3 is
the authorized dealer of Honda cars. Complainant had purchased a
Honda Brio VMT car from the Opposite Party No.3/Dealer. It was
represented by the sale-executive of the Opposite Party No.3/Dealer that
the car is the best car and the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 have taken all
due care and caution at the time of manufacture. It was also represented
that the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 will provide alloy wheels for the
said car. After delivery of the car, Complainant noticed that the spare-
wheel, which was provided together with the car, was a steel-rim wheel
and not alloy wheel. Complainant persistently followed-up the matter
with the Opposite Parties for replacement of the wheel. However, the
Opposite Parties did not provide alloy-wheel. Complainant has alleged
that the Opposite Parties have provided an inferior quality spare-wheel
and that amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant had issued
notices to the Opposite Parties, through Adv. Bendre and Adv. Mandar
Pandit. However, the Opposite Parties gave deaf ear. Hence, the
Complainant has knocked the doors of this Forum and asked replacement
of steel-wheel by alloy-wheel as well as sought compensation besides
costs of the complaint.
CC/14/98 3/6

VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

[3] Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written version whereas
Opposite Party No.3 filed separate written version. All the Opposite
Parties flatly denied the contents as regards deficiency in service.
According to the Opposite Parties, it was never agreed that the Opposite
Parties will provide a spare alloy-wheel. Out of five wheels, four wheels
which are supplied to the Complainant are alloy-wheel and the fifth
spare-wheel is a steel-rim wheel. As there is no deficiency in service
caused by the Opposite Parties, they have prayed for dismissal of
consumer complaint.

[4] We have heard learned counsels representing the parties to the

complaint proceedings and with their help we have also carefully
scrutinized entire material placed on record.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

[5] Upon carefully scrutinizing the pleadings of the parties in the light
of evidence adduced on record, hearing the arguments and giving anxious
thought to the contentions raised in brief notes of written arguments,
following points arise for our determination and we record our findings
thereon for the reasons that follow:-

Sr. No. Points for determination Our findings

Whether Complainant has proved In the affirmative
that Opposite Party has caused
deficiency as contemplated under
(i)
Section-2(1)(g) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 in the service
rendered to the Complainant?
What order? Consumer complaint is
(ii)
partly allowed
CC/14/98 4/6

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

As to Point No.(i), Deficiency

[6] Undisputed facts in the present proceedings are that the

Complainant had purchased the car which is manufactured by the
Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 from the Opposite Party No.3/Dealer.
There is no dispute as regards the payment of price of the car made by the
Complainant as well as mechanism in the car. The dispute in the present
complaint is only as regards non-supply fifth alloy-wheel. In that
context, the Complainant has mostly relied upon the brochure which is
supplied by the Opposite Parties. It is crystal clear from the brochure that
the Opposite Parties agreed to supply alloy-wheels together with car. In
the present proceedings, the Opposite Parties have supplied four alloy-
wheels but the fifth spare-wheel is a steel-rim wheel and it is not an alloy-
wheel. It appears from the attitude exhibited by the Opposite Parties that
they have no common sense. It is a common experience that when one of
the wheels of a car gets punctured, it should be replaced by fifth spare
wheel. It is immaterial as to whether the fifth spare wheel, which is steel
rim wheel, is defective or not. However, if, three wheels are alloy-wheels
and only one wheel is steel-rim wheel then, the car will definitely look
very shabby. Consumer is paying hard-earned money for his satisfaction.
If, he has paid huge money and purchased a valuable car then, he has
every right to get satisfaction. Not only mechanism but also the look of
the car is very material from the point of view of consumer. The
Opposite Parties did not consider this fact at all and contested the
consumer complaint only for a prestige point. When, the consumer had
spent more than an amount in sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchasing a car
then, why he should compromise with the manufacturers and the dealer as
regards look of his car. The attitude exhibited by the Opposite Parties is
showing that they have compelled upon the honest consumer to drag into
CC/14/98 5/6

Consumer Forum for the redressal of his grievance without any sufficient
reason. It is considered opinion of this Forum that non-supply of alloy-
wheel as promised certainly amounts to short-coming and that amounts to
deficiency in service at the hands of the Opposite Parties. In such
circumstances, it is necessary to pass the order as regards replacement of
alloy-wheel as well as to award adequate compensation. That would meet
the ends of justice. We have thus, accordingly answered points for
determination.

Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

(a) Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2014 is hereby partly allowed.

(b) Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to

replace steel-rim fifth spare wheel supplied together with car of the
Complainant by an alloy-wheel.

(c) Opposite Parties shall bear their own costs and shall pay to the
Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) by way of global compensation towards mental
and physical agony and costs of consumer complaint.

(d) Opposite Parties shall comply with foregoing order and report
compliance thereof to this Forum within a period of forty-five days
from the date of receipt of this order and failing which, the
Opposite Parties shall also be liable to pay to the Complainant,
interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire awarded amounts, as per foregoing
order, as from the date of expiry of stipulated period of forty-five
days till realization of the amount by the Complainant.

(e) Parties are hereby directed to collect extra sets of complaint

compilation submitted for the Members of this Forum within a
CC/14/98 6/6

period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order or else,
such extra sets shall be destroyed as per procedure.

Pronounced on 22nd August, 2017

Sd/-xxx
[V. P. UTPAT]
PRESIDENT

Sd/-xxxx
[ONKAR G. PATIL]
MEMBER

Sd/-xxxx
[MRS. KSHITIJA B. KULKARNI]
MEMBER

kvs