STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Vaibhav Verma S/o Sh.K.S.Verma, Village Chirgaon, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.       Garg Autos, SCO No.280, Sector 32-D, through its Proprietor Sh.Ashish Garg.

2.       Royal Enfield (A unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.), Thiruvottiyur High Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai-600019, through its Managing Director.

              ....Respondents/Opposite parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the appellant.

PER  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.3.2012, rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant.

2.                     The facts of the complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Motor Cycle, from opposite party No.1 for Rs.94,750/-.  It was stated that from day one of its purchase, problems of battery leakage, engine noise and bent shocker were there, which were brought to the notice of opposite party No.1, which repaired the shockers, but the battery was not changed. Due to leakage of battery, side lock of the motor cycle also broke.  It was further stated that the motorcycle again started giving troubles as its engine and gear gave some unusual noise, due to which, it was taken eight times to Jallandhar Motors and also many times to opposite party No.1, but the noise persisted. He also sent a number of e-mails to the opposite parties, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                     Opposite party No.1, in its written version, admitted the factum of purchase of the motorcycle on 23.11.2010 by the complainant. It was stated that the motor cycle had been used by the complainant for about one year, but just 15 days prior to the expiry of the warranty period, he filed the complaint on 9.11.2011. It was further stated that the opposite parties, were not aware, whether the complainant went to Jallandhar Motors, or not, for repair of the motorcycle. It was denied that the motorcycle, in question, suffered from any manufacturing defect, or that the complainant ever visited opposite party No.1 with the complaint of battery, oil leakage, engine noise or shocker bent. It was further stated that the complainant visited it, for the first time on 1.7.2011, with the complaint of engine noise, and thereafter on 2.8.2011 with the complaint of engine noise, clutch play, gear shifting etc. and, as per the warranty terms and conditions, the repair work was done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant without any charges. It was further stated that there was no manufacturing defect, in the motor cycle.  The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.                     Opposite party No.2, filed identical reply, as was filed by opposite party No.1

5.                     The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

6.                     After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.

7.                     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                     We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

9.                     It was submitted, by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that there were defects, in the motorcycle, in question since day one of its purchase, due to which, he took the same for repair to M/s Jalandhar Motors, as well as opposite party No.1, several times, but the defects could not be rectified.  It was further submitted that since there were manufacturing defects in the motorcycle, the same could not be rectified. In support of his contention, he placed on record photographs (Annexure C-3 to    C-17).

10.                  It is evident, from the record, that the complainant purchased the motorcycle, in question, on 23.11.2010 and visited opposite party No.1, for the first time on 1.7.2011 with the complaint of engine noise. Thereafter, he again visited opposite party No.1 on 2.8.2011 with the complaints of engine noise, clutch plate/play, gear shifting etc. All the aforesaid defects, were rectified, by opposite party No.1 and the motorcycle, in question, was handed over to the complainant, who signed the job card (Annexure R-3) after being fully satisfied.  The onus to prove manufacturing defects, in the vehicle, in question, was upon the complainant.  However, he neither produced any expert evidence, nor could prove, from the record, that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defects. Even the photographs, placed on record, by the complainant, do not depict, if these pertain to the motorcycle, in question.  On the basis of these photographs, it could not be conclusively concluded, that there was any manufacturing defect, in the motorcycle, in question.  Similarly, in the absence of production of any documentary evidence, the contention of the complainant that he took the motorcycle, in question, to M/s Jallandhar Motors, for repairs, also cannot be accepted as correct.  There was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, by opposite party No.1.

11.                  In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion, that the order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly legal and does not suffer from any infirmity, warranting the interference of this Commission.  Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed, in limine, with no order as to costs.  The order impugned is upheld. 

12.                  Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

24.4.2012

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER