IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of June, 2018
Filed on 16.11.2016
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim , BA,LLM (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.371/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Suresh.T, 1. The Manager,
895 Nayikkaparambil, Royal Enfield,
Mannanchery.P.O., Door No.29/783 B,
Mannanchery, Tharayil Chambers,
Alappuzha. Vyttila, Kochi- 682019.
(By Adv.P.P.Geetha)
2. Royal Enfield,
A Unit of Eicher Motor Ltd.,
Thiruvattiyoor Hight Road,
Thiruvattiyoor,
Chennai- 600019
(By Adv.Arun Raj.S & Arjun S.Raj)
ORDER
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
This case based on the complainant filed by Sri.Suresh.T against two opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The averments in complaint short are as follows.
The complainant had purchased a Royal Enfield Bullet from the first opposite party on 3-5-2015 for an amount of Rs.1,53,927/-. The complainant has availed services as specified in the manual. The product has a warranty for a period of 24 months or for 20,000 kms whichever is earlier. Immediately after the purchase the vehicle shows starting trouble and the defects have been intimated to the first opposite party at the time of each servicing but the defect was not cured. Later the complainant got information from the opposite party with the main rad of the engine is defective but the opposite parties failed to replace the engine or to rectify the defect. According to the complainant as there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the Bullet. The complainant had sent a lawyers notice to the first opposite party. Even though the same was received by the first opposite party they have not given any reply to the said notice. The vehicle is now with first opposite party. But it has not been got repaired nor returned even without making any repair. The act of the opposite party caused much mental agony to the complainant apart from monitory loss and hence filed this complaint either to replace the engine or to refund its price.
3. The 1st opposite party resisted the complaint by filing detailed version raising the following contentions.
In the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Royal Enfield is the manufacturer and the address provided in the complainant is that of the dealer. It is submitted that the dealer provides for the showroom for displaying and sales of the vehicle manufactured by Royal Enfield. Hence, Royal Enfield is a necessary party to the above complaint, without which the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is true that the complainant had purchased Royal Enfield 500 on 3-5-2015 for Rs.1,53,927/- and the vehicle has a warranty period up to 24 months from the date of sale or 20,000 Kilo meters whichever is earlier. The registration number of the vehicle bought by the complainant is wrongly stated in the compliant this shows the lack of care for the vehicle. The complainant has not maintained the vehicle by having proper periodic service to the vehicle as mentioned in the owners’ manual, which is the reason for the poor condition of the vehicle at just 19,752 Kms. Further, for availing the warranty, a pre-condition is that all the 4 free services and 3 paid services are to be availed during the respective periods as mentioned in the schedule, from an authorised dealer or service centre, but the complainant has miserably failed to do so. The complainant herein has not brought the vehicle for service at 12,000 kms, 15000 kms and 18000 kms as stipulated in the owners’ manual. Whenever the complainant has brought in the vehicle for service, all the queries raised by him has been properly dealt with by the opposite party herein. In the circumstances the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of warranty as sought for in the complaint. The violation of terms and conditions of the warranty disentitled the complainant to make warranty claim. The opposite party had issued reply notice denying the claims of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and no mental agony or financial hardship has been caused to the complainant. The inconvenience caused is only due to carelessness on the part of the complainant in maintaining and properly servicing the vehicle at the respective intervals as provided in the owners’ manual. The vehicle of the complainant was left at the service centre of the opposite party by the complainant on 01.07.2016, with kilometre reading at 19,751. Prior to that day the vehicle was brought in for service on 09.05.2016 when Kilo meter reading was 10,825 kms. The complainant has recklessly used the vehicle without proper care within the said period. The complainant has not taken delivery of the vehicle from the service centre of the opposite party since 01.07.2016. Several letters and reminders have been issued by the opposite party on various occasions, also before the issuance of the lawyers notice by the complainant. But there was no response on the part of the complainant in taking delivery of the vehicle. The complaint has been filed only on an experimental basis without explaining the true facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is dismissed.
In the light of the contention of 1st opposite party Royal Enfield which is the manufacturer of the vehicle has been impleaded as additional 2nd opposite party. But inspite of service of notice. Additional 2nd opposite party remain exparte.
4. In view of the above pleadings the following points arise for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
3) Reliefs and costs.
5. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and got marked Ext.A1 to A5 documents marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of legal notice issued to the 1st opposite party dated 20-07-2016. Ext.A2 is the AD card. Ext.A3 is the sale invoice dated 03-06-2015. Ext.A4 is the service invoice dated 14-10-2015. Ext.A5 is the service invoice dated 02-12-2015.
6. No oral evidence has been adduced by the contesting 1st opposite party, but got marked 6 documents as Ext.B1 to B6. Ext.B1 is the copy of warranty terms and conditions. Ext.B2 is the vehicle history. Ext.B3 is the letter issued to the complainant dated 18-08-2016. Ext.B4 is the letter issued to the complainant dated 19-09-2016. Ext.B5 is the copy of reply notice dated 04-08-2016 and Ext.B6 is the AD card.
7. Complainant’s counsel filed notes of argument. Heard both sides.
8. Point No.1 & 2
The case of the complaint is that the complainant on 03/06/2015 had purchased a motor bike from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the additional 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,53,927/-. The vehicle is having a warranty for a period of 24 months or for 20,000 Kilo meters whichever is earlier. During the said period the vehicle became defective and entrusted to the 1st opposite party for repairing the vehicle under warranty. But the 1st opposite party denied to repaire the vehicle under warranty stating that the complainant has not done the services properly and hence the warranty became void and refused to do the repair work under warranty. The act of the 1st opposite party caused much mental agony to the complainant and hence filed this complaint.
9. According to the complainant immediately after the purchase of the vehicle it shows starting complaint and the same was informed to 1st opposite party at the time of service but the problem was not rectified. There after the vehicle became defective again and the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 1st opposite party in June 2016 to carry out the necessary repairs under warranty. But they refused to do the repair work under warranty stating that he has not done the periodic services as specified.
10. Admittedly the warranty period of the said vehicle is 24 months or for 20,000 Kilo meters whichever is earlier. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was purchased on 03-06-2015 and the complaint was filed on 16-11-2016 so definitely the dispute arose within a period of 24 months and the odometer reading according to the complainant is only below 11,000 kilo meters, but according to the opposite party it is 19,752 kilo meters. So definitely the vehicle is under warranty.
11. According to the 1st opposite party the complainant has not brought the vehicle for service at 12,000 kilo meters, 15,000 kilo meters and 18,000 kilo meters as stipulated. There is nothing on record to prove that what are the specified intervals on which the services are to be done. In view of the endorsement in Ext.B2 vehicle history it can be seen that the vehicle has been entrusted to the 1st opposite party at least for more than 7 times within one year and the last date of entrustment is 9/5/2016. On going through Ext.B2 vehicle history report, it is clear that vehicle had under gone periodic checkups and routine maintenance such as engine oil change. It is also clear from the Ext.B2 document that the complainant had made the complaint of self start not working and the complaint relating to overheating during the warranty period itself. According to the complainant the opposite party has not cured the defects and now he could not use the vehicle. The only contention of the 1st opposite party is that the complainant has not done the services as specified in the owner’s manual and hence warranty became void, so they could not repair vehicle under warranty. On going through Ext.B2 vehicle history report we cannot find that the complainant has neglected to maintain the vehicle nor subjected the vehicle for proper service at the required interval or at the stipulated time. The 4th free service of the vehicle is not due even as per the contentions of the 1st opposite party. Further Ext.B2 made it clear that the complainant had taken the vehicle to the 1st opposite party for routine maintenance such as oil change and for other checkups. So the contention of the 1st opposite party is not sustainable.
In view of the materials available on record it is clear that the complainant had purchased the vehicle as per the assurance given by the opposite parties regarding warranty and proper after sale services. But the opposite parties failed to provide the
assured after sale service to the complainant. So they have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the relief.
Since the vehicle has been defective during the warranty period and he could not use the vehicle for more than 1 year we feel the warranty should be extended for a further period of 1 year. The complainant had spent his hard earned savings to purchase such an expensive bike with a view to use it for a reasonable period of time. According to the complainant he approached the 1st opposite party many times for getting the defects rectified and that too in the warranty period. So the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the monitory loss, mental agony and inconvenience caused to him. Points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands allowed. The opposite parties number 1 & 2 are directed to rectify the defects of the motor bike bearing number KL-04-AK 1213 free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant and return the same within one month from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are further directed to provide an additional warranty for a period of 1 year from the date of re delivery of the vehicle.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
If the motor bike is not repaired and returned within the above said period of 30 days along with extended warranty for one more year both the opposite parties will have to pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day till the complaint gets the possession of the vehicle and the complainant is entitled to realise the same from opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.E.M.MuhammedIbrahim (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Suresh.T (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of legal notice, dated 20-07-2016
Ext.A2 - AD Card
Ext.A3 - Copy of sale invoice , dated 03-06-2015
Ext.A4 - Copy of service invoice, dated 14-10-2015
Ext.A5 - Copy of service invoice , dated 02-12-2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of warranty terms and conditions
Ext.B2 - Vehicle History
Ext.B3 - Letter, dated 18-08-2016
Ext.B4 - Letter, dated 19-09-2016
Ext.B5 - Copy of reply notice, dated 04-05-2016
Ext.B6 - AD Card
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
