11.01.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The complainant  filed present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of cost of the bike Rs. 140,000/- along with interest @ 18%, interest of Rs. 30,000/- paid as loan interest and Rs. 25,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members (compensation).
2. In  brief the  facts of the complaint  are that OP-1 is a dealer of Royal Enfield bike (Bullet) who is engaged in selling the Royal Enfield Bike (Bullet), OP-2 is an authorized service center of Royal Enfield and engaged in business of providing services for Royal Enfield Bike and deals with consumers on behalf of Royal Enfield Eicher Motors Ltd. and OP-3 is a unit of Eicher Motor Ltd. head office of Royla Enfield Bike and controls all its showroom branches and service centers.
3. It is stated that on 29.03.2015 complainant purchased one Royal Enfield Bike (Bullet) CLASSIC 350 SILVER, RC. NO. DL9SX7000, Eng. No. U3S5COFC710878 and CH no. ME3U3S5C0FC710878 vide invoice no. INV0099141501118. It is further stated that complainant face issues in his bike from the first week of the purchase and matter was report to OP-1 than it was advised to go to service center there bike was repaired but after 1,2 days again same issue faced by complainant. The service center is not able to repair the bike. It is further stated that bike was not able to start and problem of starting of bike detected then again defective bike was handed over to OP-2. Thereafter, again problem started bike gets switched off itself and get over heat during starting and remains the same problem.
4. It is stated that the bike was again reported to service center OP-2 and it was returned after rectification and repair caburator and wiring, but starting problem remains the same and no satisfactory service provided to complainant. The complainant continuously visited service center and the documents filed on record. The bike is defective and OPs are harassing the complainant. A letter dated 07.02.2017 and 22.02.2017 sent to OP but there is no response, hence present complaint filed.
5. OP-1 & 2 filed joint reply. The preliminary submissions made that a copy of complaint obtained from the court on 03.07.2017. It is stated that present complaint failed by complainant is devoid of merit and false and misleading, frivolous, baseless, incomplete fact and circumstances stated by complainant therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that  complainant made representation and filed present complaint with sole intention of extorting money from respondents.
6. It is stated that respondent NO.3 is a Unit of Eicher Motor Ltd. and has been a pioneer of powerful four stroke technology since 1955 in India and having its manufacturing base in Chennai, India.  It is further stated that OP-1 & 2 are the authorized service center and dealer of OP-3. It is stated that owing to the popularity of OP-3 most of the bike models have to be booked one to two months in advance and best quality practice follows by OP-3 and warrants its bikes to be free from all manufacturing material defects under normal use subject to certain terms and conditions.
7. It is stated that at the time of booking and delivery of the bike the customer is provided with warranty guidelines apart from other terms and conditions. The warranty guidelines also states that warranty does not apply to electrical equipments which are subject to normal wear and tear. Moreover, during the warranty period, only defective parts of the vehicle can be repaired or replaced free of cost and a new vehicle is not issued to customer. It is further stated that vehicles bought requires routine maintenance and services. Maintenance schedule are based on time and distance. Owners manual include a chart listing of the maintenance tasks. The vehicle parts requires inspection, cleaning, replacement, adjustment/lubrication at regular intervals.
8. It is stated that complainant availed first service of his bike on 10.04.2015 and second free services on 12.06.2015 and there was no issue with the bike. There is no defect in the bike whatsoever and job card signed by complainant. It is further stated that during all the free service the bike of complainant was thoroughly inspected and some of the vehicle parts were lubricated/correctly adjusted, however, no issue or problem was found any of the vehicle part of the bike. It is stated that complainant mentioned certain issued with the bike which were all resolved during the servicing and it was explained that problem caused due to normal wear and tear of the vehicle parts and also due to negligent/incorrect driving habits of the complainant and there was no manufacturing defect in the bike.
9.  It is  stated that the issue which was reported again after second service and it was informed to complainant that the reason behind the reoccurrence of the problem is the damage battery of the bike which has suffered damage due to negligent and incorrect riding habits of the complainant. It is further stated that complainant was suggested to get the battery of the bike replaced and as a gesture of goodwill it was also offered that same will be done by free of cost but complainant refused and shown malafide intentions.
10. It is stated that due to negligent and incollect driving habit of the complainant led to damage of clutch assembly of the bike and the same do not covered under warrant but was changed free of cost as a gesture of goodwill on 12.01.2017. The complainant’s vehicle is in good and  roadworthy condition and suffers from no defect whatsoever. The complainant is falsely alleging that there is manufacturing defect in the bike . It is further stated that complainant’s refusal to get the bike service shows the malafide intention and claims made by the complainant are baseless, incorrect and denied.
11. The OP-1 & 2 denied each and every contention, allegation and averment made in the complaint and reiterated preliminary submissions in the written statement. It is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief or compensation or cost and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 & 2 and denied all the allegations and averments made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that complainant is extremely disappointed at the attitude of officials of OP parties towards its customers. It is stated tat complainant facing continues auto off issue in the bike from the week of delivery which is clear that it is manufacturing defect and all service record filed by complainant. The service record mention all the faults at the job card. It is further stated that complainant is having valid driving license and also driven another vehicle which runs perfectly. The complainant also changes battery. It is stated that opposite parties changes the clutch assembly with payment of Rs. 5201/- for which no invoice issued and after some time again changed/replaced clutch assembly on 12.01.20147 fee of cost. It is stated that it is clear cut case of manufacturing defect in the bike, therefore, complainant is entitled to all the relied claimed in the complaint.
13. Reply filed by OP-3. Op-3 taken preliminary objections that complainant has made false and misleading statement. The claim urged by complainant are wholly malafide and present complaint filed with sole intention to extort money. The OP-3 mentioned all the facts which are mentioned in the reply of OP-1 & 2. It is stated that OP-3 is the manufacturer of quality bikes that are well known world wide for their reliability and toughness. It is stated that OP-3 has state of the art infrastructure to manufacture the same and also has an active in house research and development wing.
14. It is stated that OP-3 undertakes all the related planning which includes rigorous customer contact programme, design, concurrent engineering and testing process. It is further stated that motorcycle design is well equipped high-end CAD/CAM work stations and the latest modeling software. The OP-3 put in place modern manufacturing practices like cellular layouts, statistical process control and flexible manufacturing system. The Chennai manufacturing facility has received the ISO-9001 certification and for managing its operations in a clean and safe environment, it has obtained the ISO 14001 quality certification and Kaizens  are implemented to insure the quality level are kept and ever rising pace.
15. It is stated that OP-3 insures that all the components used in the bike are sourced from the best vendors in the Indian Automotive Industry, who are geared to supply according to its company’s stringent quality standards and works closely with all its suppliers, giving them technical and marginal support while maintaining practices like direct online and vendor self certification . It is further stated that OP-3 exports motorcycles to 94 countries like the USA, Japan, UAE, Korea, Behrin, U.K., France, Germany, Argentina and many other countries. The OP-1 has setup wide network to 12 brand store, 600 dealers in all major cities and towns, 5 dedicated gear stores and over 200 authorized service centers. OP-3 sells more than 40000-50000 bikes per month and more than 6 lakh bikes in a year. OP-3 warrants its bike to be free from all  manufacturing and material defect under normal use subject to certain terms and conditions.
16. The OP-3 filed on record job card no. 18542 dated 03.07.2017. It is stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the bike of the complainant the OP-3 reiterated all the contents which are mentioned by OP-1 &2 which is stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-3 and denied all the allegations and averments made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that complainant is extremely disappointed at the attitude of officials of OP parties towards its customers. It is stated tat complainant facing continues auto off issue in the bike from the week of delivery which is clear that it is manufacturing defect and all service record filed by complainant. The service record mention all the faults at the job card. It is further stated that complainant is having valid driving license and also driven another vehicle which runs perfectly. The complainant also changes battery. It is stated that opposite parties changes the clutch assembly with payment of Rs. 5201/- for which no invoice issued and after some time again changed/replaced clutch assembly on 12.01.2017 fee of cost. It is stated that it is clear cut case of manufacturing defect in the bike, therefore, complainant is entitled to all the relied claim in the complaint.
18. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint.
19. Evidence filed by OP-1 & 2 by way of affidavit of Sh. Durga Shankar AR. In the affidavit all the contents of  written statement reiterated. OP-1 & 2 relied on reply ex.RW1/1, copy of warranty guidelines ExRW1/2, copy of invoice of purchase of bike by complainant Ex.RW1/3, job card stated 03.02.2017 Ex.RW1/4, copy of reply to legal notice dated 13.03.2017 Ex.RW1/5.
20. OP-3 also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Arshit Vashisht AR of OP-3. In the affidavit contents of written statement reiterated. OP-3 relied on power of attorney Ex.RW1/1, copy of warranty guidelines Ex.RW1/2, job card dated 03.02.2017 Ex.RW1/4, reply to legal notice dated 10.03.2017 Ex.RW1/5.
21. We have heard Sh. M.K. Gill counsel for complainant and Sh. Rishey Raj proxy for Ms. Divya Arora counsel for OP-1,2, & 3 and have perused the record.
22. The complainant alleged that the OP sold Royal Enfield bike (bullet) having manufacturing defect. Let us peruse the principle of law.
23. In the case of “ Classic automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra” as reported in I [2010] CPJ 235 (NC) wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission while dealing with the similar case has hold as under:

“ The onus to prove that there existed a manufacturing defect was on complainant/respondent No.1. We agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent no.1 failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect by producing any cogent evidence. Complainant failed to produce expert evidence as provided under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.”

24. In the preset case proper documents filed by complainant. The bike was taken to service station on 04.10.2015 and engine oil was filled at the service center. The service invoice dated 13.09.2015 shows that shocker alignment, fuel tank, thinkering and painting repairing of front mud guard and general labour was done, in addition to it head lamp SA Classic with bulb, handle bar, domestic, trafficator assy LH front, element oil filter, engine oil, gas kit and sticker tool box was provided. The service invoice dated 15.09.2015  break shoe with shorter aligning provided. The service invoice dated 18.09.2015 break pad set front clipper, gas kit exhaust pipe and pan head screw. The service invoice dated 01.11.2015 shocker allignement, wheel alignment, front rim, handle bar domestic air filter element, fuel tank assy and mud guard front silver classic. The service invoice dated 06.12.2015 mentioned that local lubrication and a tail bulb lamp was changed. The service invoice dated 14.12.2015 pan head and screw. The service invoice dated 20.02.2016 local lubrication, general service and oil filter, engine oil, break shoe, shorter lining, break show spring, operating cam, clutch switch and bulbs. The service invoice 14.04.2016 flanged hex bolt and parking bulb. The service invoice dated 11.07.2016 shows general lubrication, oil filter, engine oil and black cable strap. The service invoice dated 15.09.2016 shows break pad set front clipper, trafficator assy LH front, break shoe kit with spring and air filter. The service invoice dated 12.01.2017 shows wash, oil filter, air filter, engine oil pan head screw, cable guide and break paddle rubber.
25. The complainant has not filed any documents to show that bike is having manufacturing defect which results in problem of starting. On the other hand OP admitted the fact that there was no issue or problem found with any of the vehicle parts of the complainant bike. On 12.01.2017 as a goodwill gesture the damaged clutch assembly was changed. The first free service was done on 10.04.2015 and second free service was done on 12.06.2015. It is further stated that on 12.11.2017 as per job card the Motorcycle run for 19,567 Km. Original job card is also filed on record dated 03.02.2017 by complainant wherein the kilometer run shown to be 19,527. According to this job card there was smoking problem and kick hard check. It is pertinent to mention here that the documents on record establish that the complainant used the bike for about two years and it run for about 19,557 Km. The OP whenever complainant visited rectified the problem explained by complainant and even on 12.01.2017 repair was carried out without charging.
26. It is the duty of the complainant to prove that there exist a manufacturing defect as per judgment of Classic Automobiles (supra). The complainant during the proceedings did not take any step to produce expert evidence as provided under section 13(1)(c) of CP Act, 1986.
27. Further, under catena of Judgements name “EID Parry Vs. Baby Benjamin-I (1992) CPJ 279, Tata Motors Vs. Sunil Bhasin –III (2008) CPJ 111, Chandreshwar Vs. Telco-I (2007) CPJ 2, Diamond Cement Vs. Rai Prexin India Pvt. Ltd. I (2003) CPJ I and Lovely Vs. Harmesh Lal-I (2007) CPJ 312.” On similar issues, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that expert opinion is a condition precedent for establishing manufacturing defect.
28. On the basis of above principle of law it is clear that firstly the onus on complainant to prove that the purchase the motorcycle suffered from the defect. However, in the present case no expert opinion or evidence has been filed by complainant to prove any manufacturing defect. The complainant miserably failed to establish that the motorcycle purchased by him suffers from any manufacturing defect. It is pertinent to mention here that merely because the motorcycle had been taken to the workshop of OPs several times, it will not by itself amount to manufacturing defect. The document shows that OP whenever complainant approached the service center during the warranty period repaired and necessary parts covered under the warranty were replaced.
29. On the basis of above observation and discussion the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
30. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  11.01.2024.

    SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                  RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                          MEMBER