DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         This appeal has arisen out of order dated 15.10.2014 in CC No. 17/2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District, Kolkata, Unit - I (in short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the case has been allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP No. 2 has preferred this appeal.

         The case of the  Complainant  is that he purchased a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle, 350 CC, Thunder Bird/O/S “EBD” Model 12 Volts from the OP-1 upon payment of a total consideration of Rs.1,04,529/-. Upon using the same, he found headlight became fog, rusting on the T. base and yellow pigment formation on the bent pipe. During the first service on 21.03.2009, those problems were reported, but without any result. Subsequently, over and above the earlier problems, there were leakage of engine oil, meters encases turning dull, rusting in fork rod, sound in gear box, seizure of engine on speed above 90 Km/per hour, missing of break cap screws  and leakage in R P M meter. The same were reported to the mechanic of the OP No. 1 on 21.05.2009 during the second service, but without any improvement. So, also at the time of third service done sometime between 08.08.2009 and 12.08.2009, except repairing of leakage of engine oil, gear box and wobbing problem. Further  problems like rusting on side stand and mirror, woobing in suspension bush and petrol tank. bubbles in many areas. However, it replaced bent pipe, side stand and fork rod, apart from setting right of the of the leakage in engine oil and sound of speed  of 65 Km/ per hour. But, the T. Base Plate, petrol tank, missing break screw, dull meter cap, rusted mirror and shocker caps were not replaced. Also, RP meter leakage which causing water vapour and foggy headlight were not set right. At the request of the OP No. 1, he left the vehicle in its workshop from 20.11.2009 till 25.01.2010 for necessary repairs. But, on travelling on road, most of the defects are found still persisting and sound from engine has been developed. As such, the very purpose for which the vehicle was purchased has been defeated and he is unable to use the same in need. The vehicle has run 10,000 Km or 12 months has not been lapsed from the date of purchase and still under warranty of the OP No. 2. So, the present case.   

        On the other hand, the case of the OP No. 1 is that of denial of the case of Complainant  and that the Complainant  placed his motorcycle again to the authorised service centre’s workshop on 04.02.2010 and it was ready for delivery on the same date with all necessary repairs  and change of mobil etc. Accordingly, it has been prayed to dismiss the complaint.

        Per contra, the case of the OP No. 2 is that the motorcycle was brought for first free service on 31.03.2009 after purchase on 19.02.2009, and only  usual checking  with usual service was  provided to the satisfaction of the Complainant, who  signed on reverse of the job card. At the time of second free service of the vehicle, no such problem was reported. At the time of third free service of the motorcycle, the same was received on 08.08.2009 and was  ready for delivery on 14.08.2009, except for the problems reported, all other problems were done to the satisfaction of the Complainant, which would be  evident from the job card. Some parts could not replace due to unavailability. The motorcycle is very well within the use of the Complainant. The motorcycle was placed to the authorised  service workshop on 04.02.2010 and subsequently it was ready for delivery on the same date with all necessary   repairs and change of mobil etc. There is no inherent  manufacturing defect. The OP wishes to  take care of the problems of its customers and provide service, when free of cost is required for the purpose. Accordingly, the complaint be dismissed.

       It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of  irregularity and/or illegality so as to make an interference therein.

Decision with reasons

         Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that initially the case was disposed by an order dated 30.04.2012, on which this Appellant  preferred an appeal being FA/304/2012 before this Commission and the case was sent back on remand with a direction to the Ld. District Forum to hear the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence if required. Against that order, the Complainant went before the Hon’ble National Commission in RP/3490/2013 and the order  of this Commission remaind. Thereafter, additional evidence on behalf of the OP No. 2 being the Appellant was adduced before the Ld. District forum. Also, the expert in the matter appointed being of the Automobile Association of Eastern India was examined. As the motorcycle was not taken back by the Complainant, though it was repaired lastly on 11.01.2012, with the remark engine performance is satisfactory and that motorcycle is in roadworthy condition. So, the impugned order against the Appellant be set aside.

          Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the motorcycle still remained with the OP No. 2 being the Appellant. It is wrongfully made out that on 11.01.2012 that the engine  performance is satisfactory and the motorcycle is in roadworthy condition. The expert being Mr. Robin Kumar Das of the Automobile Association of Eastern India can not say in the matter that the vehicle if roadworthy in 2012, why the same has not been provided to the Complainant. He gave his reply in dated 21.07.2014. So, the report dated 11.01.2012 is altogether a false one. A fraud has been played in the matter by the OP No.2 being the Appellant. He has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 803.

         There is no foolproof of repair of the motorcycle by the OP No. 2 to correct the ills of the same. There has been continuous problem with the motorcycle since purchase by the Complainant. Accordingly, there is nothing to disturb the findings of the Ld. District forum in deciding the case. The impugned order is thus affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.

          Let a copy of the order along with LCR be forwarded to the Ld. District Forum forthwith.