Back
FA-237/2018 MR. GAURANG KANTH VS. SOUTH END HONDA & ORS. D.O.D. : 24.12.2021
DISMISSED
PAGE 1 OF 38
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution
: 11.05.2018
Date of hearing
: 08.12.2021
Date of Decision
: 24.12.2021
FIRST APPEAL NO.- FA/237/2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Mr. Gaurang Kanth
Son of Mr. Vinod Kumar Kantha
Office at A-9, Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi – 110 013
(Through: Mr. Aman Singh Bakhshi, Advocate)
..…Complainant/Appellant
VERSUS
1. South End Honda,
(Sales Outlet)
S-13, Green Park Extension Market,
Near Uphar Cinema,
New Delhi - 110006.
(Through Mr. Maneesh Goyal, Advocate)
.....Opposite Party/ Respondent No. 1)
Also At :-
M/s. Saket Motors Private Limited,
Plot No. 71, Block No. B 2,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Badarpur, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044
2. M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Private Limited
Plot No. A-1, Sector – 40/41
Surajpur Kasna Road,
Greater Noida Industrial Development Area,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201306
3. M/s. Honda Motor Co. Limited,
2-1-1, Minami Aoyama,
Minato – Ku Tokyo 107 – 8556, Japan
(Through Mr. Paras Joshi, Advocate)
.....Opposite Parties/ Respondents No. 2 & 3)
FA-237/2018 MR. GAURANG KANTH VS. SOUTH END HONDA & ORS. D.O.D. : 24.12.2021
DISMISSED
PAGE 2 OF 38
HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
Yes
Present:
Mr. Aman Singh Bakhshi, advocate learned counsel
for the appellant.
Mr. Maneesh Goyal, advocate learned counsel for
respondent no. 1.
Mr. Paras Joshi, advocate learned counsel for
respondents no. 2 & 3.
PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant on
11.05.2018 impugning the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Udyog Sadan, C - 22
& 23, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in case no. 877/2009.
2. Vide impugned order the complaint was dismissed holding that
there was no manufacturing defect in the car manufactured by the
respondents no. 2 & 3, which was sold to the appellant by respondent
no. 1. It has been the case of the complainant/appellant that learned
District Forum has completely disregarded the Expert Evidence filed
on record.
3. The brief facts as averred in the appeal are that on 17.01.2007
the complainant purchased for his personal use, the Honda Civic Car
FA-237/2018 MR. GAURANG KANTH VS. SOUTH END HONDA & ORS. D.O.D. : 24.12.2021
DISMISSED
PAGE 3 OF 38
model no. Civic 1.8S MT bearing registration no. DL 2F HK 9000,
Chasis No. KFD152A7N008119, Engine No. R18A11971953 from
respondent no. 1 which was manufactured by respondents no. 2 & 3.
The respondents are the service providers and the appellant is
Consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. The respondent no. 1 misrepresented that Honda Civic Car was
manufactured by respondents no. 2 and 3 to equip and suit Indian
roads and climatic conditions. The respondent no. 1 gave false
assurances and guarantees with respect to the quality, viability and
durability of the Honda Civic Cars and also falsely assured the
appellant regarding its technology to be the best suited for Indian
roads. Believing the false assurances of respondent no. 1, the
appellant had purchased the Honda Civic Car.
5. Despite assurances regarding durability and high end technology
of the Honda Civic Car, the engine of this Car seized on account of
rain on 14.08.2008 and the appellant’s car broke down in the middle
of
