New Scooter, Recurring Issues , Ernakulam District Commission Holds Honda Motorcycle, Its Seller Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Honda Activa 4G scooter from M/s Muthoot Motors (“Seller”) for Rs. 67,490/- with a year's warranty. The scooter exhibited defects from the beginning, including abnormal sounds. It was repeatedly given for repairs due to starting troubles and one-side pulling complaints on July 25, 2019 (11347 km), September 7, 2019 (12307 km), October 31, 2019 (13426 km), and November 20, 2019 (13437 km). Major parts such as the crankshaft, face drive, and plater AMP were replaced.

Due to COVID-19 lockdowns, the scooter remained idle. After the lockdowns, the earlier issues resurfaced, but the Seller refused warranty coverage, claiming the scooter was repaired in local workshops. The Complainant sent a complaint on October 4, 2021, but the Seller responded on October 22, 2021, denying service under warranty. On March 9, 2021, the scooter was again taken for repairs for engine noise and speedometer problems, but the Seller refused to repair it under warranty.

The Complainant was forced to repair the scooter at other workshops. Despite multiple repairs within the warranty period, the defects persisted. The recurring issues suggested manufacturing defects, and the technicians' inability to rectify them indicated the defects were beyond normal repairs. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) against Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. (“Honda/Manufacturer”) and the Seller.

Contentions of Honda:

Honda denied most allegations, emphasizing its reputation as a global leader in two-wheeler manufacturing with reliable engines. It stated that warranty terms were communicated at purchase, and the Seller adhered strictly to service mandates to maintain quality. Honda acknowledged the timeline of services but argued that all services were provided satisfactorily. It asserted that the scooter was serviced as per the recommended schedule to ensure engine longevity and claimed no manufacturing defects existed, asserting that any reported issues were rectified.

Contentions of the Seller:

The Seller highlighted that the Complainant failed to adhere to warranty conditions, which required services by authorized dealers. It noted that the Complainant used the vehicle for at least 7,000 km without service, voiding the warranty. The service centre was closed for only 21 days due to the COVID-19 lockdown, and services were available otherwise. It contended that the Complainant's failure to service the vehicle for over a year and a half could not be excused by the lockdown. It also stated the speedometer was non-functional, making it impossible to ascertain the exact usage of the vehicle and claimed that it did not refuse service but indicated repairs would be chargeable due to warranty violations.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission observed that, according to Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Complainant qualified as a consumer. The Complainant provided substantial evidence of persistent defects in the scooter, supported by service history showing multiple repairs for the same issues. Despite these repairs, defects recurred, indicating unresolved problems. The refusal to honour the warranty and misleading statements regarding repairs constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Seller and Honda.

The District Commission observed that the Complainant's service history contradicted Honda's and the Seller's claims, showing that multiple major repairs were performed. The vehicle was given for repair repeatedly with the same complaints, suggesting inherent manufacturing defects. Honda and the Seller failed to rectify the persistent issues, as evidenced by the recurring defects despite timely services and repeated repairs.

Therefore, it was held that the Complainant was entitled to relief due to the persistent defects and the Seller's and Honda's failure to resolve them. Honda and the Seller were directed to refund the purchase price of the scooter, paying Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of the proceedings.

Case Title: Nidhi Jain vs Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/22/50

Advocate for the Complainant: Tom Joseph

Advocate for M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India: John Prakash Bavakkat

Date of Pronouncement: 26th July 2024