Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/220/2014

R.Dhanish Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Office , The Royal Enfield - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Libra Associates

06 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 15.05.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                 :  MEMBER-I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

CC. NO.220 /2014

TUESDAY THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018                                               

R. Dhanish Kumar,

S/o. s.K. Ramachandran,

No.6/15, Santham Golony,

Thirumangalam Anna Nagar West,

Chennai 600 101.                                                      .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

1. The Senior Manager,

Head Office  - The Royal Enfield,

Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai 600 019.

 

2. The Senior Manager,

Royal Enfield – (A unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.,),

Devi Keipa,

Old No.3, New No.9,

Besant Avenue,

Adayar, Chennai 600 020.

 

3. The Senior Manager,

Southern Motors Spares and Services,

No.182, AL Block 1^st Street,

11^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai 600 040.

 

4. The Senior Manager,

The Royal Enfield,

Plot No.350 – 354 Fourth Link Street,

Nehru Nagar, Kottivakkam,

Chennai 600 096.                                         ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. M/s. Libra Associates

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. K.S.Jeyaganeshan     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to replace the defective vehicle Royal Enfield Classic 350 CC. and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.  

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that  he purchased the Royal Enfield Classic 350 cc, motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 02 AX 3111 from the 2^nd opposite party.  Immediately after the purchase of the said vehicle on 12.6.2013 the complainant strongly felt an abnormal noise in the engine and was reported on the same day to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that since the vehicle  is new one it will be alright within few days and it will be looked into at the time first service after two years.  On 28.6.2013 the complainant took the vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party for first service.   Even after  looking into the requirement and the nature of service,   has not attended properly and has done other things and returned the vehicle.  The complaint of noise is still persistence.  Thereafter  on 3.12.2013 once again the complainant sent the vehicle with the complaint of noise for service.    The opposite parties without properly attended the fault dismantled the engine.   Since the 3^rd opposite party has not serviced  the vehicle properly, the complainant sent the vehicle for service to the 4^th opposite party.  The 4^th opposite party after admitting the vehicle for service on 26.12.2013 promise that the vehicle will be delivered on 3.1.2014.  But 4^th opposite party delivered the vehicle only on 31.1.2014 with the delay of 10 days without rectifying the defects of noise.    Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice for requesting replace the defective motors with compensation.   As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party and adopted by 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties  is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties state that the caim made by the complainant on a concocted story of the  abnormal noise right from the delivery of the vehicle by the 2^nd opposite party is absolutely false.   The vehicle was brought to the 4^th opposite party on 26.12.2013  for service was not able to deliver on 3.4.2014 because  of Christmas holiday and there is a delay of 10 days which was not caused much more inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant also accepted the vehicle and took vehicle for a test drive and was on full satisfaction signed the job card.  Further the 1^st opposite party state that all the service engineers are highly qualified  and authorized persons.  The allegation of ill treatment  and wrong behavior with the complainant is  absolutely false.  The customers and their guest of the opposite parties, the spares parts if any changed is only with the prior permission of the customer, which has been duly applied in this case also.  Further the 1^st opposite party state  that  the complainant has not maintained the vehicle in a proper manner .  It has not given the test research for that the opposite parties shall not found fault.  Since the complainant has not maintained the vehicle properly which resulted damage to the vehicle.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  3^rd opposite party   is as follows:

The 3^rd  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The 3^rd  opposite party state that the complainant did not report any such noise while came to the workshop of the opposite party.  Further the opposite party-3 state that the complainant left the vehicle for service on 28.6.2013  with the meter reading 583.  The complainant  had not mentioned anything about abnormal noise while he left the vehicle for service on 28.6.2013.  Further the  opposite party-3 state that  the complainant brought the vehicle on 25.9.2013 for service with the meter reading of 3218 i.e. from 20.8.2013 to 25.9.2013 within the period of one month the complainant used the vehicle in an around 2700 km.  which is abnormal.   Further the contention of the opposite party-3 is that the complainant  without permission forcefully entered into the service area and threatened the engineers.  The engine was not completely dismantled as alleged  by the complainant and was removed to see the wear and tear or the vehicle.   The complainant is still using the vehicle and the same is serviced on 12.6.2015 without any deficiency.   Further the 3^rd opposite party state that the allegation of noise in the engine is not a manufacturing defect. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

 

5.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to  replace the vehicle  Royal Enfield Classic 350 CC with a new one of  the same model as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

 

6.   POINTS 1 & 2:

        Both complainant and the opposite parties filed their respective written arguments.    Heard the complainant counsel.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   Admittedly the complainant purchased the Royal Enfield Classic 350 cc, motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 02 AX 3111 from the 2^nd opposite party. Ex.A1 is the Booking form.  Ex.A2 is the sale invoice receipt.  Ex.A3 is the delivery note.  Ex.A4 is the registration certificate.  Ex.A5 is the insurance policy.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that immediately after the purchase of the said vehicle on 12.6.2013 the complainant strongly felt  abnormal noise in the engine and was reported on the same day to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that since the vehicle  is a new one it will be alright within few days and it will be looked into at the time first service after two years.  On 28.6.2013 the complainant took the vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party for first service.   Ex.B1 is the job card in which the 4^th  service requirement is for vibration, opposite praty-3 even after  looking into the requirement and nature of service  has not attended properly and has done other things and returned the vehicle.  The complaint of noise is still persistence.   On 26.9.2013 the complainant took the vehicle with the complaint mentioned  in Ex.B2, was also not duly carried out by the 3^rd opposite party.   Thereafter  on 3.12.2013 once again the complainant sent the vehicle with the complaint of noise for service.    The opposite parties without properly attending the fault dismantled the engine without any permission.   Ex.B4 is the photo shows that the motor cycle and  its nature.  Since the 3^rd opposite party has not serviced  the vehicle properly; the complainant sent the vehicle for service to the 4^th opposite party.  The 4^th opposite party after admitting the vehicle for service on 26.12.2013 promised that the vehicle will be delivered on 3.1.2014.  But the 4^th opposite party delivered the vehicle only on 31.1.2014 with a delay of 10 days without rectifying the defective noise.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the service of the opposite parties is very bad.  There is no cordiality maintained by the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice Ex.A9  requesting to replace the defective motor cycle with compensation. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 & 3 alone filed their objection.  The opposite parties 2 & 4 has not come forward to file any written objection except filing adoption memo proves the deficiency in service is not acceptable.  Further the contention of the  complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party knowing fully well about the said vehicle is defective one has not come forward to service the vehicle in a proper manner and dismantled the engine without the instructions of the complainant and has not come forward to replace the vehicle caused deficiency in service.

8.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that claim made by the complainant on a concocted story of  abnormal noise right from the delivery of the vehicle by the 2^nd opposite party is absolutely false.   The vehicle was brought to the 4^th opposite party on 26.12.2013  for service was not able to deliver on 3.4.2014 because  of Christmas holiday and there is a delay of 10 days which shall not cause much more inconvenience to the complainant; since like safety is a must.   The complainant also accepted the vehicle and took vehicle for a test drive and was fully satisfied and signed the job card.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that all the service engineers are highly qualified  and authorized persons.  The allegation of ill-treatment  and his behavior with the complainant is  absolutely false;    Since the customer is their guest of the opposite parties.  The spares parts if any changed is only with the prior permission of the customer which has been duly applied in this case also.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant has not maintained the vehicle in a proper manner and the vehicle has not given the test research,  for that the opposite parties shall not be found fault.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that there is no need of selling defective vehicle as a new one.   Equally there is no question of tampering the engine or spare parts never arise; since the complainant has not maintained the vehicle properly which resulted damage the vehicle.   But on a careful perusal of the job card from the inception there are some requirements regarding the service related to engine noise. 

9.     The contention  of the 3^rd opposite party is that  the complainant did not report any such noise while came to the workshop of the opposite party.  The job card reveals the problem which the complainant had while the vehicle was left for service.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.B3 and Ex.B5 shows that the deficiency of noise was mentioned in the job card.  Further the contention of the opposite party-3 is that the complainant left the vehicle for service on 28.6.2013  with the meter reading 583.  The complainant  had not mentioned anything about abnormal noise while he left the vehicle for service on 28.6.2013 as per Ex.B1.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.B1 it is very clear that there are vibrations which may cause noise.   Further the contention of the opposite party-3  is that  the complainant brought the vehicle on 25.9.2013 for service with the meter reading of 3218.    The complainant has not mentioned  anything about the abnormal noise in  Ex.B2 dated 25.9.2013.  Further the contention of the opposite party-3 is that the complainant  without permission forcefully entered into the service area and threatened the engineers; but there is no record.  The engine was not completely dismantled as alleged  by the complainant and was removed to see the wear and tear or the vehicle.   Ex.B3 proves that the said fact of the service of engine etc. there is no tampering the engine and other parts of the vehicle.  The complainant is still using the vehicle and the same is serviced on 12.6.2015 without any deficiency.  But no record to show the service dated 12.6.2015 filed before this forum.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of noise in the engine is not a manufacturing defect.  It is a mechanical defect, due to handling of the vehicle.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to service the vehicle in an appropriate manner and solve the problem of noise in the engine within one month  and  shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.   

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to service the vehicle in appropriate manner and solve the problem of noise in the engine within one month  and  shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 6^th  day of February 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDNET.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 29.9.2012 - Copy of Order booking form.

Ex.A2- 3.6.2013  - Copy of Vehicle Sale Invoice & Receipt.

Ex.A3- 12.6.2013 - Copy of delivery Note No.5796.

Ex.A4-          - Copy of Registration certificate of vehicle.

Ex.A5- 15.6.2013  Copy of insurance policy of the vehicle.

Ex.A6- 22.12.2013- Copy of letter given by the complainant.

Ex.A7- 26.9.2013 - Copy of job card given by the 4^th opp. party.

Ex.A8-           -  Copy of service & Spares Invoice with bills.

Ex.A9- 20.2.2014 -  Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A10-           -  Photos of the vehicle

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1- 28.6.2013 - Copy of job card.

Ex.B2- 25.9.2013 - Copy of job card.

Ex.B3- 13.12.2013- Copy of job card.

Ex.B4- 2.2.2015  - Copy of job card.

Ex.B5- 9.12.2015 -  Copy of job card.

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDNET.