Quote:
Originally Posted by kaizen Company replaces defective parts of the car if found defective by the customer on bringing to notice dealer send the intimation ,verified & approved fied by the manufacturer dealer replaces the part as it covered under warranty of the car . |
It is not just "defect", as in a tyre with a crack, or a block with a leak. This is about body panels with dents. Did you notice the plural?
Those are damages. Like a broken glass. You know the difference between a broken glass, and a glass with a rough edge coz. the blow moulding process was not perfect?
Quote:
Feb manufactured car delivered till dec 2008 do not require any intimation to customer as RTO rules ,
|
1.
Did you try to understand what jmathew's complaint is about? Please go through the initial posts again. It is not about RTO rules.
jmathew's complaint is about consumer's rights. About getting a defect free product. And the consumer's right to get accurate information and a defect free product / service from the producer / dealer / service provider.
I appreciate your efforts in saving jmathew from being victimised further.
Quote:
they are aware production take place N th month and parts procured and assembled in N-1,N-2 N-6 .On assembling the engine and installtion VIN No are stamped with built date as per excise rules Assembly line production is scheduled in batches with variant ,trim level ,type.so its possible the car get sold in any period from feb to dec after months of production.2007 car sold at discount but with an intimation to customer ,at price less than listed price only.
|
Thanks for the valuable info. Obviously you know how Honda schedules their manufacturing process.
But how is this information relevant here?
Quote:
With regards to paint defects its always redone to the satisfaction of the customers .
|
The customer is not satisfied. Honda and their dealer says that these are not defects. So as a bunch of consumers, we are brainstorming about how these defects happened. That is what all these pages are about.
Quote:
Transit damages car are auctioned by the transit insurer ,highest bidder take the salvage ,repaired and sold in used car market. dealer if purchased can issue only second sale invoice as insurer has sold to dealer first invoice ,then dealer sells to end user.
|
1. Can you show at least one car which has been registered like this?
2. Please refer to the previous quote. This is what you said:-
Quote:
With regards to paint defects its always redone to the satisfaction of the customers .
|
If all transist damaged cars are sold off, why should the company redo the paint damage? Or is it that paint damages occur only in factory, and factory damaged cars are not sold by the insurance?
Or is it that this particular was neither factory damage, nor transist damage? (so damage in storage?)
Or did jmathew deliberately damaged his car to defame them? (Remember, we are brainstorming, so all possibilities are considered here.)
We, as a group of consumers, who care for our cars, and therefore know the pain when we find the brand new car we paid through our noses for is severely damaged, have narrowed down the possibility for the damages here to just these cases.
1. Damage in transist.
2. Damage in storage.
3. Damage during demonstrations.
If we knew when the car was despatched from factory was very close (and therefore the car was not with dealer for a long time), we could have ruled out damage in storage, and damage in demonstration / desplay drives. But unfortunately, the manufacturer and dealer have no details of vehicle's manufacturing history, inspite of excise rules MANDATING maintenance of such records. (You were the first to qutoe the excise rules). In fact, Honda has admitted to breaking the excise rules by admitting that they have no records of when the vehicle was despatched from the factory.
Quote:
In this case ,the customer will get the replacement plus whatever claims etc ,he sues if this act is done by the dealer. Unless its proved ,its assumptions not real facts which the legal system would accept. If this proved by the dealer at court he hasnt delivered transit damage car ,he wins ,then defamation case can be filed for the reputation ,expenses incurred for building the name in the market .
|
No defamation case is maintainable simply for filing a complaint in a court of law.
Quote:
Japanese co are clearly sold on the products reliability and quality being a reputed manufacturer they would not do so neither the dealer for a couple of lacs .
|
The problem is, they have done the unthinkable. Most of us here are surprised. That is why this thread grew by 5 pages within 24 hours of first post. You may be a good company. You may have a good reputation. You may have best practises in place. But, you have no records of when a car was despatched from the factory. Sorrry. That is not good management or distribution or quality control or customer relationship or inventory management or sales or whatever.
Quote:
Any time i prefer Japanese car especially the VTEC engines its 100% performance .
|
Quality of engines is not in question here? is it? Nobody has complaints about mechanical performance of the car. Did I miss anything here?
At the end, seems are going to have 3, not just 2 suits.
1. By jmathew against the dealer and Honda.
2. By dealer and Honda against jmathew for defamation.
3. By excise department for not maintaining records of manufacturing and despatch data.
;-P
The first two are optional. The 3 parties (buyer, Honda and dealer) still have time to settle the matter between themselves.
But the prosecution against Honda for breaking the excise rules cannot be compromised. My sympathies.