BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 168 of 2015.                                                                       

                                                            Date of Institution         :    29.9.2015.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    24.4.2017

Surender Verma son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of Begu Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Gulzar Motors Agenices, Delhi Road, Sirsa through its Proprietor.

2. Royal Enfield (Head Office) No.624, Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd. Thiruvottiyur High Road, Thiruvottiyur, Near Thiruvottiyur Bus Terminus, Chennai.

                                                         ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SMT. RAJNI GOYAT…………………PRESIDING MEMBER.

                  SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ………..……MEMBER.       

Present:       Sh. Sahil Gaat,  Advocate for the complainant.

      Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.

                   ORDER

                    Case of the complainant, in brief, is that op no.1 is the authorized dealer of Royal Enfield motor cycle and the op no.2 is the manufacturer of the same. On 3.6.2015, complainant had purchased a new Royal Enfield motor cycle from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.1,27,000/- against proper bill. After one day of its purchase, the same started releasing undesired sound from its engine and complainant visited op no.1 in this regard who generally checked the motor cycle. After checking, technical fault was found and op no.1 assured the complainant that as and when their engineer shall visit to their service centre, the same shall be got checked from him. It is further averred that on checking by the engineer, some parts of the motor cycle were replaced but the sound was same. Thereafter it was again got checked from the engineer and manufacturing defect was found by him. The complainant a number of times contacted the ops through telephonic calls as well as by way of personal visits to the showroom of op no.1 but the op no.1 has been avoiding the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about a week ago the op no.1 totally raised his hands by simply saying that he has got no way out for the same. The complainant also got issued a registered legal notice to the op on 16.7.2015 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to replace the motor cycle with new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the motor cycle and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for harassment etc.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that complainant has alleged that the ops have delivered a defective motor cycle whereas the motor cycle delivered is of top quality duly inspected/tested by the ops and the complainant purchased the same only after fully satisfying himself. It has not been mentioned in any where when the complainant visited the op no.1 for availing service/ repair. On 3.7.2015 and 22.8.2015, the complainant was provided with prompt and satisfactory service. The complainant after filing the present complaint also visited the op no.1 on 30.10.2015, 6.11.2015, 7.11.2015, 6.1.2016, 22.3.2016, 26.4.2016, 10.6.2016, 22.6.2016 and on 20.7.2016 for service and general checkup and repair which was provided to him which includes replacement of parts free of cost, although damaged due to negligence/mishandling on the part of complainant. The complainant has never made complaint regarding the defect alleged in the present complaint and was always satisfied regarding the repair and service to his entire satisfaction.

3.                Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply on the similar lines as that of opposite party no.1. It has also been submitted that complainant has not annexed report of any independent expert or any other documents to substantiate the alleged defects. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty offered by the op, no replacement is permissible.

4.                The complainant produced copy of certificate of registration Ex.C1. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A and copies of job cards Ex.R1 to Ex.R11.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The sale of the motor cycle in question to the complainant on 3.6.2015 is not denied by the opposite parties. However, to substantiate his plea that motor cycle in question is having manufacturing defect, the complainant has not produced any reliable and cogent evidence. So there is nothing on record to presume manufacturing defect in the motor cycle in question. The complainant got serviced the motor cycle from op no.1 on 3.7.2015 at running of 515 Kms. at which time he reported that engine is making noise and there is noise in the disk which problem was resolved by op no.1 by changing oil filter etc. by charging an amount of Rs.870/-. The complainant received the motor cycle after his entire satisfaction and the job card Ex.R1 bears his signatures. Then from perusal of job card dated 22.8.2015 Ex.R2, it is revealed that complainant reported the problem of head noise to op no.1 and said problem was resolved by changing head, oil, hydraulic, kit free of costs and complainant received the motor cycle after his entire satisfaction after signing job card. Then on 30.10.2015 i.e. after filing of present complaint, he went to op no.1 for general check up as is evident from job card Ex.R3. On 6.11.2015, complainant went to op no.1 for missing problem in motor cycle as is evident from job card Ex.R4 and got motor cycle from op no.1 after necessary repair without any charges and the said job card also bears his signatures. On 7.11.2015, he raised the problem of shocker which was replaced without any charges and job card Ex.R5 in this regard bears his signatures. Then from the perusal of subsequent job cards Ex.R6 to Ex.R11, it is evident that complainant visited the op no.1 on different occasions after gap of sufficient days for mere wear and tear i.e. minor problems of air filter, service, shocker, noise in handle, headlight, speed meter and missing etc. and all the times the op no.1 resolved the above said problems in the motor cycle. Mere wear and tear in the running motorcycle cannot be said to be manufacturing defect without any cogent evidence by way of expert report in this regard. Therefore, no case for replacement of motorcycle and refund of the price of the same is made out. However, in our considered opinion that end of justice would be met if the opposite parties are directed to inspect the motor cycle thoroughly and to remove defect, if any.

7.                Keeping in view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to inspect the motor cycle in question thoroughly and to repair the same after replacement of defective parts, if any, free of costs within a period of one month after production of motorcycle by the complainant to the ops. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply this order.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                 Presiding Member,

Dated:24.4.2017.                  Member.             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.