SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD.

THE complainant-Surinder Mohan Sharma purchased a Hero Honda motor cycle from Chrishma Gold Wheels, Chandigarh-respondent No. 3, the authorised dealer of Hero Honda Motors on 4.7.1994. At the time of first service, engine of the motor cycle was found defective and the same was given to respondent No. 3 for repairs, which could not be carried out satisfactorily. THE District Forum-I awarded to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 2.8.1999 as compensation for the deficiency in service. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred :

BRIEFLY the complainant purchased a Hero Honda motor cycle from respondent No. 3 and paid a sum of Rs. 34,481/- vide receipt No. 112 dated 4.7.1994. The first free service of the motor cycle was carried out by the respondent No. 3 on 25.7.1994 and there was a defect of the engine oil consumption, which was brought to the notice of respondent No. 3. a the time of second service it was brought to the notice of the respondent No. 3 that the vehicle had loaded pickup, smoke emission and excessive engine oil consumption. This was within the warranty period of 6 months from the date of purchase. Though, the respondent No. 3 replaced crank, shaft, piston rings and piston pin of the motorcycle and charged sales tax @ 12% on the value of changed parts amounting to Rs. 595.32p. yet motor cycle did not run properly and the complainant had to finally leave the motor cycle with the respondent No. 3 for its repairs on 12.6.1995 and the same is still lying there. The complainant wrote a number of letters to M.D., Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi-respondent No. 1 and M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., Dharu Hera, Haryana-respondent No. 2 and visited the office of Assistant Engineer of the respondent No. 3 at Chandigarh on 20.5.1995 but of no avail. The respondent No. 3 had denied that the motor cycle of the complainant was not attended to. The free service and oil change was done by job card No. 1424 and no defect of the oil had been found at that time. The second service was done vide job card No. 1640 when the vehicle had run 2696 kms. and there was no complaint of heavy oil consumption. On 2.9.1994 the excessive oil consumption complaint was attended to vide job card No. 1758 and the third free service was not availed by the complainant. However, on 20.9.1994 when the odometer was giving reading 5808 kms., the motor cycle was repaired vide job card No. 1920. The respondent No. 3 has averred that all the engine parts of the motor cycle had been changed on 29.9.1994.

We have perused the documents pertaining to the case and the affidavit of Service Engineer Sh. Harsharandeep Singh and also heard the learned Counsels for the parties, this Commission holds that this motor cycle has a manufacturing defect in the engine, the deficiency on the part of respondents is writ large. In conclusion the appeal succeeds and respondents are held liable to replace the motor cycle with the new one within two months and hand over the same to the complainant to his satisfaction. In case the three respondents named in the complaint fail to hand over the motor cycle within the period specified above, they shall be liable to refund the sum of Rs. 34,481/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. The interest shall start only from the date of this decision. With this modification and enhancement appeal stands disposed of with costs Rs. 1000/-. There is Cross Objection No. 196 of 1999 attempted by Managing Director, Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and others, claiming that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, now appellant. We disagree with the plea that the motor cycle was in a satisfactory condition at any stage. On the contrary this is a case where the dealers had been wholly unfair to the complainant consumer. In conclusion this appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.