Orissa

Cuttak

CC/59/2017

Rashmi Ranjan Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager,Royal Enfield. - Opp.Party(s)

S L Kumar

07 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.59/2017

 

Rashmi Ranjan Behera,

Res. of Hazipur,P.O:Biridi,

Dist:Jagatsinghpur,

At present Res. At:Alisha Bazar,

PO:Chandinichowk,P.S:Lalbag,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                      … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1. General Manager/Managing Director

Royal Enfield (a unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.,

Thiruvottiyur High Road,Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai-600019.

 

2. The Proprietor,

Shree Hanuman Automobiles,

N.H-5,Pratapnagari,Bhanpur,

Cuttack-753011.                                                                                         … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     03.05.2017

Date of Order:  07.11.2017.

 

For the complainant        :       Sri S.L.Kumar,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                     :       Sri R.K.Rout,,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps.

1. In nutshell the case is that the complainant purchased a Bullet classic 350 motorcycle from O.P No.2 on 06.06.2016 on payment of Rs.1,39,687/- bearing Regd. No.OD-05-U-7202.(Annexure-1).  After 2 months a small gap was noticed on the part of the engine and the complainant intimated the same to O.P No.2.  O.P No.2 told him not to worry but the gap on the part of the engine increased day by day and the complainant again intimated the same to O.P No.2 and also requested to replace the vehicle vide letter dt.29.09.2016.(Annexure-2).  O.P No.2 did not reply for which the complainant served a legal notice on 21.11.2016 to refund the cost of vehicle along with interest @ 24% and/or replace the vehicle by another new vehicle(Annexure-3) copy of the said notice was also served on O.P No.1 but in vain.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of vehicle on road with 24% interest or to replace the vehicle with a new one and also to pay a further sum of Rs.1,85,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.
2. O.P No.1 vide their written version dt.3.7.17 has intimated that O.P No.1 produces quality motorcycles and exports the same to 94 countries and sells about 6,00,000 bikes in a year.  O.P No.2 was the authorized dealer of O.P No.1 till 29.09.2016 and thereafter his dealership was terminated.  The warranty guidelines apart from other terms and conditions, explicitly state the followings:-

1. RE will replace or repair defective part(s) at their dealerships and authorized service centre, free of charge with in a period of 24 months or 20,000 kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier.
2. During the warranty period, RE’s obligations shall be limited to repairing/replacing part (s) of the vehicle for free, only if the part (s), on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect.  Defective part(s) which have been replaced will become the sole property of RE.
3. The warranty shall be applicable only if all the 4 free services and period maintenance services are availed in the respective period/Kilometer ranges as per the schedule in the owner’s manual from RE dealers/authorized service centre.
4. Warranty shall not apply to ….. damages due to non-genuine parts, lack of proper maintenance incorrect riding habits.
5. RE reserves the right of finally decide on all warranty claims.”

On 18.7.2016 the complainant bought his vehicle for routine maintenance and servicing and was satisfied with the servicing of the bike.  No problem was found with any vehicle parts.  The complainant did not avail the rest 3 nos. of free services which is necessary for warranty terms and conditions.  The issue of gap in the engine was not reported till 18.7.20-16 but was reported only on 26.9.2016 and on 04.10.2016.  The bike had covered 10,256 Kms but never brought for service prior to 18.7.2016.  The issue of Gap as alleged by the complainant is for lack of maintenance and care of the vehicle by the complainant.  It was explained to the complainant that the complainant has to pay for the replacement of the crack case since the bike was not under warranty but the complainant insisted to replace the vehicle.  There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

3. O.P No.2 did not appear and was set exparpte on 17.08.2017.  He was no more a dealer of O.P. No.1 w.e.f 30.09.2016.
4. We have gone through the case record in details, heard the learned advocates from both the sides at length. We have observed that the complainant had purchased a classic 350 motorcycle from O.P No.2 on 06.06.2016 on p[payment of Rs.1,39,687/-.  The Regd. No of the said vehicle was OD-05-U-7202.  O.P No.1 has intimated that the O.P No.2 was dealer of O.P .1 till 29.09.2016 and his dealership was terminated thereafter.  O.P No.1 has admitted that the first free servicing of the vehicle was made on 18.7.2016 and the gap relating to engine was not reported till 18.7.2016 but the same was reported only on 26.09.2016 and on 04.10.2016.  The O.P No.1 has not produced any proof relating to the kms covered by the said vehicle as on 18.7.16 when the 1st servicing was made.  Since the 1st free service was to be done at 500 kms or 45+ 8 days (whichever is earlier) the 1st service made by the complainant appears to be proper since it was done after 42 days of purchase and the O.P No.1 has failed to produce records relating to the mileage covered by the vehicle as on 1st free service.  The 2^nd free service was due on 90+ 15 days or at 3000 kms whichever is earlier.  As such the 2^nd free service was due as on 18.09.2016(since the kms covered by the vehicle is not available) which falls within 90+15 days of purchase.  Since no further free service was availed by the complainant and the complainant has lodged complaint on 29.09.2016 regarding the gap in the engine, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not availed the 2^nd free service in time.  The complainant should have availed 2^nd free service in time but he has not availed the same.  The reason given by the complainant vide his subsequent letter i.e. written notes of submission dt.30.10.2017 for not availing the 2^nd free service in time is that the shop of O.P No.2 was closed when the complainant visited O.P No.2 for free servicing.  Vide the said letter the complainant has not given any specific date on which he had visited O.P No.2 for availing the 2^nd free service.  Whereas the original petition dt.01.05.2017 is silent regarding such facts.  The complainant has also failed to prove that the matter relating to gap in the engine was intimated to O.P on 18.07.2016 or prior to 29.09.2016.  At the same time the complainant has submitted copy of his written complaint dt.29.09.2016 addressed to O.P No.2 (Annexure-2 as submitted by the complainant) wherein the said letter is also acknowledged by the addressee which clearly indicates that O.P No.2 has received the said letter on 29.09.2016.  Since O.P No.2 was a dealer of O.P No.1 till 29.09.2016 and O.P No.2 has acknowledged the above letter of the complainant on 29.09.2016 and are conclude that the shop of O.P No.2 was not closed till 29.09.2017.  Hence it amount to violation of warranty terms and conditions.  Even if we conclude that the 3^rd and 4^th free services were not due as on 29.09.2016, it is a fact that the 2^nd free service was due by 18.09.2016 which was not availed by the complainant and it violates the warranty terms and conditions.
5. The complainant also has not produced any material evident/proof relating to manufacturing defect of the vehicle, hence such an allegation made by the complainant is not proved.

 

                                                                                ORDER

                Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service & unfair trade practiced on the part of O.Ps.  Hence the case is dismissed.            Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 7^th day of November,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

 

                                                                                                                                      (   Sri D.C.Barik  )

                                                                                                                                               President.

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                      (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                                  Member(W).