HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. Vs. T.NAGENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties are the appellants. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2003 in C.D. No. 89/2003 on the file of District Forum -II, Hyderabad under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing this appeal as stated in the complaint are briefly narrated hereunder.

(3.) THE complainant purchased Hero Honda Splender with chassis No. 02B20F 43850 and Engine No. 02B18E 43191 model 2002 on 5.3.2002 by paying the entire consideration of Rs. 47,730 including registration. After the vehicle was taken for delivery it is realized that the vehicle suffered from inherent problems comprising starting trouble, low mileage, hard gears, improper focus lights, vibration at speed exceeding 55 kms. etc. The accessories provided were also of poor quality. The bike while running was pulling to right side. As the vehicle did not give the satisfactory performance, the defects were brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 directed the complainant to bring the vehicle for service and rectified the only problem of starting trouble and beak of the head light. The vehicle was delivered as if defects pointed by the complainant were rectified. Even after the delivery the vehicle did not provide relief to the complainant. The defect of vehicle pulling to right side was not rectified even after first servicing resulting in severe shoulder pains and neck pain. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop of the opposite party to rectify the defect of pulling towards the right side which was attended by the opposite party No. 3 under job card No. 6305 dated 6.6.2002. Unfortunately even after delivery of the vehicle it was realized that the said defect was not rectified. Therefore, the vehicle was again sent for repairs on 4.7.2002. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 detained the vehicle for a period of 43 days. When the vehicle was taken for trial it was observed that the major defect of the vehicle i.e., pulling to right side was not rectified. This was tested by the opposite party No. 3 and confirmed. Therefore, the opposite party kept the vehicle till 15.7.2002. On 15.7.2002 the complainant sought the delivery of the vehicle. The opposite party No. 3 confirmed that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect and the same will be rectified by a service engineer coming from Delhi deputed by opposite party No. 1 and the complainant was supplied with a standby vehicle for his use. Inspite of repeated requests the vehicle. was not delivered and the opposite parties 2 and 3 demanded back the standby vehicle. The complainant got issued notice on 25.7.2002 which was replied by the opposite parties on 31.7.2002. The complainant issued a rejoinder to the notice on 8.8.2002. The opposite parties agreed to release the vehicle free from all the defects on 17.8.2002 and the vehicle was taken by the complainant under protest. But it was found that major defect in the vehicle i.e., pulling to right side is still persisting and the opposite party refused to take back the vehicle for any further repairs. The complainant finally got issued notice dated 29.8.2002. As there was no reply the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to replace the vehicle or in alternative to refund back the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs. 42,080 + Rs.