Date of Filing      : 21.06.2021

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 30.08.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                            ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  B.COM.,                                                                                 ......MEMBER-II

                

CC. No.27/2021

THIS TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Mr. V.Perumalsamy, S/o.Mr.Velsamy,

No.7, Ponnambalam Salai,

Kolappakkam Main Road,

Kolappakkam, Chennai -600 122                                                  ……Complainant.  

 

                                                                                 //Vs//

 

1.M/s.Aravinduja Motors Private Limited,

    No.105, Kamala Gardens,

    Mount Poonamallee Road,

    Kattuppakkam, Chennai -600 056,

    Thiruvallur District.

 

2.Royal Enfield, 

    Plot No.A19/1, Sipcot Industrial Growth Center,

   Oragadam, 

    Kancheepuram District -631 304.                                        …..opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                                     :   Mr.G.Kalidasan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                              :   exparte 

 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 04.08.2022 in the presence of Mr.G.Kalidasan, Advocate Counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following order on merits: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in the purchase of Royal Enfield bike along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,49,764/- for bike cost and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service being the total amount of Rs.4,49,764/-  with interest  at the rate of 7%  and to pay the cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

The complainant booked a vehicle on 12.02.2020 and the Bike was allotted with chassis No.ME3U355CILA601282 and Engine No.U355CILA204208 for total consideration of Rs.1,49,764/-.  The 1st opposite party promised that the complainant would receive a helmet as gift for purchasing the bike.  The vehicle when delivered was registered in RC.No.TN-85L-7778 which is valid up to 28.01.2035.  On 16.11.2020 when the complainant travelled from Chennai to Trichy, while he was returning from Trichy to Chennai at Chengalpattu he felt that he was not riding the bike but only skating as there was riding issue.  On 18.11.2020 the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party’s service center for the bike’s defects while on riding, the Service Engineer convinced that the vehicle condition was good and there was no need for any changes/replacement required on the accessories in the vehicle.  It is advised by them that if still the complainant was having discomfort or difficulty in travelling he may change the Rear side Tyre of the vehicle.  The complainant for his protection and safety immediately changed the bike’s tyre but still he faced the same issue.  Hence he again approached the 1st opposite party’s Service Engineer, there was no proper response and it was found that the 1st opposite party’s Service Engineer had diverted the complainant in different version instead of replacing new “Shockupser” in the purchased bike. The 1st opposite party asked the complainant to contact them on 18.01.2021 and informed that in order to change a new Shockupser of the vehicle he must wait till first week of February 2021.  When the 1st opposite party again contacted it was informed that the Shockupser accessories stock was not available in the service center and was expected on 15.02.2021.  When the complainant called over phone the 1st opposite party on 16.02.2021 to know the availability of the accessories, they did response to him that again he had to wait till 1st March 2021.  On 1st March 2021 the complainant handed over his vehicle to the service center to comply the vehicle defects, they asked two days time.  However, on the same day the complainant received a phone call from the 1st opposite party’s service center informing that the vehicle is ready for delivery and the complainant accordingly reached the opposite party’s service center and took delivery of his vehicle.  Even after that the complainant felt the same condition and when he examined his vehicle he found that the Shockupser was not replaced in the bike and moreover they have damaged the existing Shockupser by way of denting it. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complainant was filed alleging deficiency in service and to direct by the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,49,764/- for bike cost and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service being the total amount 4,49,764/-  with get an interest  7%  and to pay the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. Inspite of sufficient notice the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not appear and hence they were called absent and they were set ex-parte on 28.06.2022 for non appearance and non filing of written version. Though a review petition has been filed to set aside the order still they did not appear to prosecute the petition and hence the petition is dismissed for default.  Thus the opposite parties did not contest the case.

Point for consideration:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not replacing the Shockupser in the new vehicle purchased by the complainant even after agreeing to replace the same at the time of service of the vehicle?

2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled? 

 Point:1

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Customer receipt copy dated 15.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;

HDFC Bank Loan copy dated from 06.03.2020 to 06.02.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;

Registration Certificate copy was marked as Ex.A3;

 Insurance copy was marked as Ex.A4;

Tyre purchase receipt copy dated 14.12.2020 was marked as Ex.A5;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 22.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A6;

Acknowledgment card for proof of service was marked as Ex.A7;

Photo was marked as Ex.A8;

CD marked as Ex.A9;

 Heard the oral arguments made by the complainant and also perused the written arguments and evidences filed by them.  The counsel for the complainant submitted that he has purchased the vehicle for Rs.1,49,764/- as per invoice Ex.A1.  At the time of purchase the 1st opposite party had promised the complainant a helmet as gift for purchasing the bike.  The vehicle was registered on 25.01.2020 and was issued RC No.TN-85L-7778 vide Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. On 16.11.2020 when the complainant was returning from Trichy to Chennai he felt some riding difficulty and contacted the 1st opposite party.  They advised for changing the tyre and the same was purchased vide Ex.A5 and replaced.  Further on 13.10.2021 again he felt the same riding difficulty and approached the 1st opposite party who assured to replace the Shockupser of the vehicle and the complainant was made to wait till 1st March 2021 but the opposite party failed to replace the Shockupser and hence the complaint was filed.  

On perusal of the documents and pleadings produced by the complainant it is proved that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party.  Further vide document Ex.A6 we could see that the complainant had issued legal notice through post and also through email to the opposite parties with regard to the defects in the vehicle and for the replacement of Shockupser as promised by the 1st opposite party’s service center.  It was also mentioned that the complainant was made to wait from 08.01.2021 to 1st March 2021 for replacing the Shockupser and when the vehicle was entrusted with the 1st opposite party service center for replacement of Shockupser on 01.03.2021, they assured that it will be done in two days time, however, the same day evening they informed to the complainant that the Shockupser was replaced and the vehicle was ready for delivery.  It was found by the complainant even after that the Shockupser was not replaced and the vehicle was with same defect.  The opposite party vide reply had informed that they have completely understood and regret for the inconvenience caused and also they have asked proper response from the service center team on the Shockupser issue and they also wanted some time to rectify the same.  Thus it is proved that the 2nd opposite party had not denied that the vehicle was suffering from some defects and needs replacement of the Shockupser.  Though the complainant had not filed any documents like the Job Card or expert opinion in the absence of an inspection report we can safely rely upon the reply given by the 2nd opposite party that the vehicle needs replacements of Shockupser.  It is also contended by the complainant that he left the vehicle on 01.03.2021 with the service center on assurance that the Shockupser will be replaced but the same was not done by them and delivered the vehicle in the same position.  If the Shockupser was replaced then the complainant would not have approached this commission after issuing a legal notice. Also the opposite parties failed to dispute/rebut the allegations made by the complainant.  Under these circumstances, we can safely hold that the opposite parties had failed to replace the Shockupser as assured and thus have committed deficiency in service.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:

With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant, the complainant had asked for refund of the amount of Rs.1,49,764/- towards the bike cost and Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony.  However, we could see that for a simple replacement of a part of Shockupser the refund of the bike cost would be an extravagant remedy.  Hence we direct the 2nd opposite party to replace the Shockupser within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the hardship caused to the complainant. We also award Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties; 

a) to replace the shockupser within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees  five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of August 2022.

 

       Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 ............. Customer Receipt Copy. Xerox

Ex.A2 ............ HDFC Bank Loan Copy. Xerox

Ex.A3 .............. Bike RC copy. Xerox

Ex.A4 ............. Insurance Copy Xerox

Ex.A5 14.12.2020 Tyre receipt copy Xerox

Ex.A6 22.03.2021 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A7 .............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox

Ex.A8 ............ Photo Xerox

Ex.A9 ............ CD – Both parties conversation. Xerox

 

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties;

 

 

Nil

 

        Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT