BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 20 of 2016. Date of Institution : 18.1.2016
Date of Decision : 23.2.2017
Manoj Kumar aged 40 years son of Sh. Harbans Lal, resident of A-Block, H.N. 46 back side of Anaj Mandi Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Gulzar Motor Agenices, Hisar Road Sirsa through its Prop./ partner/ Manager or authorized person.
2. M/s Eicher Motors Limited, Registered office at 3rd Floor, Select City walk, A-3, District Centre, Saket New Delhi.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sunny Kumar Babbar, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had purchased one new motor cycle Royal Enfield model classic 350 from opposite party no.1 on cash payment vide bill No.3088 dated 28.7.2014. Thereafter, the said motor cycle was got registered. The complainant was given two years full warranty of the motor cycle. After few days of purchase of motor cycle, he noticed that its engine was giving abnormal voice than the engine of the other motor cycle manufactured by company which amounts to noise, while in fact the engine of Royal Enfield motor cycle gives the voice which is called as classic voice without any interruption and altogether free from noise pollution. The complainant brought this vehicle to the workshop of op no.1 and told them that there is some manufacturing defect as the engine is the main part of the motor cycle but they told the complainant that after effecting 4/5 services, the engine noise of said vehicle will be normal and ok but after all services, the defect has not been removed and it is still subsisting. Besides the above said defect, there is also a problem of starting. It is further averred that either in summer season or in winter season, the motor cycle starts with great difficulty and not normally and it is also the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Despite several visits of complainant at the workshop/ agency of op no.1 and despite written request, the op no.1 is not listening the complainant and avoiding to remove the said defect and has now totally refused to admit the claim of complainant for replacement of motor cycle with new one of the same model about a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply submitting therein that motor cycle Bullet manufactured by op no.2 is free from material defect under normal use subject to conditions that op no.2, Royal Enfield, will replace or repair defective part/parts at their authorized dealers, service points, free of charge within a period of 12 months from the date of sale or 10000KM whichever occurs earlier. It is wrong and denied that the complainant was given two years full warranty for the replacement of parts or motorcycle as alleged. The complainant is beyond warranty period. As per record, the complainant approached the answering op on 7.8.2014, 11.10.2014, 12.3.2015, 11.6.2015 and 15.12.2015 for free service, which was done upto his satisfaction and there was no complaint mentioned in the job card by complainant. The complainant has never approached the answering op except for free service. The complainant has never made any complaint regarding the starting of the motor cycle or any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. OP no.2 also replied in the same manner as replied by op no.1.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of invoice Ex.C3, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.C4, copy of sale certificate Ex.C5, warranty terms and conditions Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copies of job cards Ex.R1 to Ex.R5, and warranty terms and conditions Ex.R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. It has been established on record that complainant purchased the motor cycle in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on 28.7.2014 as is evident from copy of invoice Ex.C3. The complainant has also placed on file copy of warranty terms and conditions Ex.C6 in which it is mentioned that RE (Royal Enfield) will replace or repair defective part(s) at their dealership and authorized service center, free of charge within a period of 24 months or 20,000 kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier. Whereas, the ops have also placed on file copy of warranty terms and conditions Ex.R6 wherein the period is mentioned as 12 months or 10,000 kms. But as the complainant is in possession of warranty card in which period 24 months or 20,000 kms is mentioned, the version of the complainant is to be believed that he was given two years warranty. Moreover, ops have not proved on record that warranty terms and conditions placed on file by them as Ex.R6 pertains to the motor cycle of the complainant. However, the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the motor cycle in question. In the copy of job sheet dated 12.3.2015, the problem of starting is mentioned. Then in the job sheet dated 11.6.2015, no problem as alleged by complainant is mentioned. Similarly, in the job sheet dated 15.12.2015 when the motor cycle covered 11503 Kms., no such problem was raised by the complainant to the ops. There is no expert opinion on file to prove any manufacturing defect in the motor cycle in question of complainant. However, the ops are liable to repair the motor cycle and replace defective parts if any free of charge as per terms and conditions of warranty.
7. Thus, keeping in view our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the motor cycle in question and to make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to take the motor cycle to the ops well in time. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 23.2.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
