DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/264/2011
No. DF/ Central/
Manish Modi
S/o Late Shri Ramesh Modi
51/22, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Eicher Motors Limited
(Royal Enfield) Eicher House
12, Commercial Complex,
Greater Kailash – II, Masjid Mot
New Delhi – 110 048 …..OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1
HAVING ITS REGIONAL MARKETING OFFICE AT:
Eicher Motors Limited (Royal Enfield)
79-80, Satkar Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019
HAVING ITS PLANT AT :
Eicher Motors Limited (Royal Enfield)
Thiruvottiyur High Road,Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai – 600 019, Tamil Nadu
2. Ess Aar Motors Royal Enfield
1E/13 Jhandewalan Extention
New Delhi - 110055
…..OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Manish Modi (in short the complainant) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended
up to date pleading therein that he purchased a brand new Black Coloured 500 CC Motor Cycle bearing Engine No. U5SFF0AF006138, Chasis No. ME3U5S5F0AF006138 and registration No. DL 6 SM 7264, (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the vehicle’’) from Ms/ Ess Aar Motors Royal Enfield, 1 E/13 Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi – 110055 (OP 2) who is authorized dealer of Eicher Motors Ltd., (OP 1) at a cost of Rs. 1,41,000/- (Rupees One Lac Forty One Thousand Only) on 04.07.2010. At the time of purchase he was assured that OP 1 would be giving free servicing for the motor cycle for the first 1,0000/- KM or 90 days which ever was earlier. Said vehicle started giving mechanical trouble within few days of its delivery. On 10.08.2010, the electrical circuit was damaged due to fault in the relay system. Therefore, complainant went to OP 2 who changed the circuit and delivered the vehicle on the same day vide invoice no. 2653 dated 10.08.2010. Further within a month of delivery of the vehicle its metallic part started getting corroded due to moisture and poor painting. Complainant again approached OP 2 for repair work on 14.08.2010. OP 2 assured to take necessary steps to remove all technical and mechanical defects. Complainant handed over the vehicle to OP 2 on 05/11/2010. OP 2 informed the complainant that the defects in the vehicle had been removed and he could take back the same. The complainant took back the vehicle on 05.11.2010 from OP 2.
However there was an unfortunate blast in the filter box of the vehicle on 14.11.2010. Complainant was left with no option but to hand over the vehicle back to OP 2 on 15.11.2010 for removing all mechanical, technical and electrical defects.
Complainant felt cheated by OPs and accordingly sent legal notice dated 27.11.2010 to the OPs asking for compensation for causing mental harassment. OPs have neither replied to the legal notice nor repaired the defects in the vehicle which has been lying in the workshop of OP 2. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the vehicle, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service and causing mental agony Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss in profession and Rs. 20,000/- for legal expenses.
2. OPs contested the claim vide their reply. It is submitted that complainant purchased the vehicle on 04/07/2010 in perfect condition. He satisfied himself in all aspects and also took a test drive before taking delivery of the vehicle. It is further stated that the complainant after using the vehicle for more than a month approached OP 2 for the first free service. It is denied that it suffered from any defects as alleged. It is further submitted that on 10.08.2010 the complainant reported at the service station of OP 2 to avail the first free service and signed the job card dated 10.08.2010 verifying that he had received the vehicle in absolutely good working condition and complainant did not raise any grievance as it is
evident from the job card dated 10.08.2010.
It is denied that complainant handed over the vehicle on 05.11.2010 to OP 2 for repair work. It is stated that vehicle was brought to OP 2 on 04.11.2010 for availing second free service. The same was done and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on the same day i.e. on 04.11.2010 as is evident from the job card dated 04.11.2010. Further it is stated that complainant approached OP 2 on 15/11/2010 on which date concerns of the complainant as informed by him were duly noted in the job card and were addressed on the same day itself. It is stated that complainant did not mention anything about any blast in the filter box nor the same was mentioned by him during the preparation of the job card dated 15.11.2010.
It is further stated that OP 2 has repeatedly requested the complainant to collect the vehicle as the same is in perfect condition but complainant has failed to do so and has filed the instant complaint to gain wrongfully from the OPs.
3. We have heard Shri Anant Bhushan counsel for complainant and Shri Vivek Munshi Counsel for OP.
4. We have gone through the record. The first job card is dated 10.08.2010 when first free service was done and oil was checked. The problems mentioned in the job card are as under:
‘‘Both wheels rim rusty, HL casing colour peel off, timing concern, clutch cover plating dull, exhaust pipe discoloured, speed cable damaged, rackon plating dull both sides, idler gear cover .’’
(Handwriting not legible. Reproduced above as read out to us by Ld. Counsel for both sides)
Learned counsel for OP submitted that on 10.08.2010 the concerns of the complainant were duly addressed and the complainant had signed the job card after his due satisfaction. Complainant admitted that he signed the said job card dated 10.08.10. It is no where written in the said job card that his concerns were not addressed or that he was not satisfied.
The next job card is dated 04.11.2010 when the vehicle was brought for second free service and after general check up the service was done.
The next job card is dated 15.11.2010. Complainant has stated in para 8 of complaint that there was a blast in filter box on 14.11.2010. There is no mention of any such blast in the said job card dated 15.11.2010. It simply reads that it had starting trouble and tool box was broken.
Learned counsel for OPs have drawn our attention to their letter dated 15.01.2011 addressed to the complainant. It is placed on record as Ex CW 1/6 wherein it is written that :
‘‘Problem of the above said vehicle was immediately rectified and vehicle is in good condition, ready for delivery. As per our testing, performance of the vehicle is good. You were informed by our Workshop Manager about readiness of the vehicle as well as you were requested to take delivery of the bike.
Since the vehicle is lying at our workshop, our Proprietor of M/s Ess Aar Motors Mr. Staish Garg also visited to your place along with company’s personal on 11th Dec. 2010. They apologized for the problem faced by you and you were assured that the vehicle is in good condition and you were requested to take delivery of above said vehicle.
Once again we request you to please take delivery of the bike at the earliest.’’
Complainant did not reply as to why he had not taken delivery of the vehicle. We asked the complainant as to why he did not respond to the above letter of the OPs to take delivery of the vehicle. We further asked him as to why he was not collecting the vehicle from the workshop of OP. He submitted that the vehicle has many manufacturing, electrical and mechanical defects but he could not give details of any such manufacturing, electrical and mechanical
defect. He has not placed on record any expert opinion which may indicate that the vehicle had any manufacturing defects.
5. Our State Commission in FA No. 08/539 in complaint case no. 791/2003 vide its order 12.08.2018 referred to Judgements in Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Hemshukh Lakshmichand III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC) and Maruti Udyog Ltd VS Anil Bhardwaj & Ors-I (200() CPJ 270 (NC) Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. VS Dr. Birendera Barain Prasad & Ors.-III (2010) CPJ 130 (NC) and observed that :
‘‘onus lies on the complainant to prove by cogent and adequate evidence supported by expert opinion that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects and unless that onus is satisfactorily discharged, liability of manufacturer could be limited only to the removal of the defects only by replacement of the parts.’’
From the job cards of the vehicle, as discussed above, it is not proved that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. As such complainant is not entitled to replacement of the vehicle. However letter of OPs dated 15.01.2011, reproduced above, does indicate that there were certain problems in the vehicle which were rectified by OPs and which caused inconvenience to the complainant
for which complainant needs to be compensated. Accordingly OP is directed to
pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation along with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. Complainant is directed to collect the vehicle from the workshop of OP within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order. The OP is directed to pay this amount to the complainant within 30 days of the date of receipt of this order failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the said date till realisation of the said amount. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this ___ th day of _____ 2019.
