Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/51/2018

Kamaljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Khalsa Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

MP Nayyar

07 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     51 of 01.10.2018

Date of Decision:                    :      07.08.2019

Kamaljit Kaur W/o Satnam Singh R/o Village Jalwehra, PO Todarpur, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Khalsa Automobiles, Banga Road, Near Octroi, Phagwara – 144401, District Kapurthala, through its Owner/Parnter/Manager.
2. H.S. Enterprises, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr through its Partner/Proprietor/Manager (Showroom – cum – Service Centre)
3. Royal Enfield, Unit of Eicher Motors Limited, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai through its Managing Director.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.Navneet Sareen, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER S.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

                   Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that she purchased new Royal Enfield Classic 350 Black – Motorcycle Model Royal Enfield Classic 350 Black from OP-1 for Rs.1,33,300/- on 22.11.206 for her personal use. Registration Number of said vehicle is PB07-BD-4580.  At the time of purchasing of said vehicle OPs assured & promised that said vehicle would work properly and there shall be no complaint in its usage and promised that if any technical problem be arisen, the OPs would solve and keep the said vehicle in working position.  Said vehicle never driven rashly and negligently and get service of the motorcycle properly.  But from very beginning, the engine of aforesaid motorcycle never worked properly and it got overheated & over pressured and it used to stop working after riding of 15/20 minutes & used to create noise due to faulty engine.  Complainant has visited many times with office of OPs and its workshop to get her motorcycle checked from OPs and requested to solve the problem of her motorcycle as said vehicle is in warranty period.  Technical expert of OPs told her that said motorcycle contains technical defect in engine which cannot be solved.  Complainant never enjoyed her motorcycle from the date of its purchasing.  In the month of July 2018, Ops changed some parts of said motorcycle vide sale invoice dated 10.07.2018, but problems could not be solved.  She also visited with Ops for solution/rectification of defects of motorcycle in question vide job sheet Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7.  The Ops are duty bound to remove the defect of said vehicle but with malafide intention never paid any heed to solve the problem.  It is also alleged that Ops opened and repaired engine of said new motorcycle many times but they failed to remove the defect of engine of said vehicle.  Mechanic of Ops has verbally disclosed to complainant that engine of motorcycle is defective & it cannot be removed.  Complainant has submitted its motorcycle in question with Ops on 13.06.2018, 19.07.2018, 27.07.2018 and beside it recently on 21.08.2018 and 17.09.2018, she submitted her motorcycle with OP-1 to remove & correction of fault of motorcycle in question.  Said motorcycle never worked properly from the day of its purchase due to manufacturing defect in engine of motorcycle.  The OPs are duty bound to replace said defective engine of motorcycle or to keep it in working position.  Prayer has been made that OPs be directed to keep motorcycle in question in proper working position as well as to remove its all technical defect of engine or to replace the engine motorcycle and Ops be burned with Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses. 

2.                Upon notice, the Ops has filed written reply; OPs have taken preliminary objections that complaint is devoid of merits; complainant has come to this Forum with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts; present complaint filed is contrary to real chain of event that took place and complainant concealed necessary information from this Forum; complainant does not disclosed any cause of action against OPs; vehicle bought required routine maintenance and servicing.  Maintenance schedules are based on time and distance.  Onwer’s manuals include a chart listing of maintenance tasks.  Vehicle parts require inspection, cleaning, replacement, adjustment and/or lubrication at regular intervals; Ops never met the complainant in person but one Sukhwinder Singh, who use to brought the complainant’s bike at authorized service centre of answering OP, was pressing the OPs for replacement of motorcycle without justification and used to openly boast that he is government employee of this Forum and he could easily influence the said court into passing any order of replacement or compensation of the vehicle; said Sukhwinder Singh used to throw his weight around in a very open and brazen manner; Ops being customer centric company always attended the complainant’s bike and same is in a superb roadworthy and excellent running condition ; Ops have apprehension that Sukhwinder Singh might be in a position to interfere with course of justice; Ops request that Sukhwinder Singh either be transferred out of Nawanshahr or the present case may be transferred to some other Forum, which this Forum as convenient;  every time the bike in question reported to our authorized service centre and raised the concern of engine sound; said bike was inspected by senior technician of OPs and it was explained to them that sound of engine of bike is normal bandwidth, with no effect to its performance; however, complainant spoke person pressurizing us to replace the bike in question.  It was explained to him that as per company policy and warranty guidelines the bike cannot be replaced; the defective part of the bike can be replaced with sole discretion of the company.  The bike in question is continuously using by complainant’s spoke person and changing reading of odometer is evidence of same.  Ops contacted spoke person of complainant to settle present case and ask him to bring said bike to workshop to address all the concern.  The spoke person of complainant agreed to bring his bike to authorized service centre of OPs.  Complainant on 31.10.2018 brought his bike at authorized workshop of OP-3 and reported the issue of engine noise and then bike of complainant was thoroughly inspected by senior technicians of OPs. Bike of complainant is perfect and roadworthy condition. No such defects as alleged in complaint were found.  But to satisfy complainant’s representative concern, Ops has replaced oil pump assembly of complainant’s bike of Rs.900/- under goodwill gesture, free of cost.  Spoken person of complainant was fully satisfied with work and agreed to withdrawn the case and customer satisfaction note dated 31.10.2018 signed by complainant’s spoke person. Spoke person of complainant on 19.11.2018 brought bike at authorized service centre of OP-3 and get the bike serviced but no complaint related to engine noise was reported. Full support and assistance was given to complainant at all times by OP-1 and its authorize service centres. There is no manufacturing defect in his bike whatsoever. Complainant’s vehicle is in good and roadworthy condition and suffers from no defect. On merits, it is denied that vehicle never worked properly from very beginning or that it got over-heated or over pressured or it used to stop-working after riding for 15/20 minutes. None of above problem were ever reported by spoke person of complainant. There is no fault with engine even Ops Engineer has not found any abnormality with the engine sound of vehicle in question to which complainant’s spoke person had given his full satisfaction all the times; the alleged problems are imaginary and these does not exists in reality; Ops are ready to get technical inspection of vehicle by some accredited laboratory like PEC, Chandigarh, if this Forum appoint any technical expert as mentioned in CP Act; the bike in question has successfully completed 10771 K.M. on 14.11.2018. Lastly prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint with costs.    

3.                 On being called to do so, the counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. bill Ex.C-1, RC Ex.C-2, job sheets Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8, service invoice Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence and then in additional evidence three photographs Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11, copy of warranty slip Ex.C-12, bills Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14, CD Ex.C-15, and its genuineness certificate Ex.C-16, letter dated 04.04.2019 Ex.C-17, and its postal receipt Ex.C-18 and closed the additional evidence. Similarly, learned counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit of Navjot Sharma Ex.OPA, alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. special power of attorney Ex.OP-1, customer satisfaction note dated 31.10.2018 Ex.OP-2, customer satisfaction note 14.11.2018 Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

5.                 The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A in support of her case. She deposed that from the very beginning, the engine of the above said vehicle not working properly and it got overheated and over pressured and it used to stop working after riding 15-20 minutes and used to create noise due to faulty engine. She has visited many times with office of OPs and requested to solve the problem of her motorcycle. The technical expert of OPs told her that the aforesaid motorcycle contains the technical defect in engine, which cannot be solved.  She never enjoyed her motorcycle from the date of its purchase. She alleged OPs are duty bound to replace  the above said motorcycle and to remove the defect of engine. She further deposed that the above said motorcycle is in warranty period and defective piece consisting of manufacturing defect in the engine has been delivered to her. She alleged OPs are very negligence in the providing their services to her and she has spent huge amount on the purchasing of aforesaid motorcycle. Ex.C-1 is certificate of registration. Ex.C-2 is sale invoice  dated 22.11.2016. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 are job cards of different dates. Ex.C-8 is service pre invoice. Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 are photographs. Ex.C-12 are terms and conditions of the Royal Enfield Motorcycle. Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 are tax invoice-service. Ex.C-16 is certificate given by complainant.

6.                 To counter this evidence of complainant, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Navjot Sharma son of Prem Chand Sharma Area Manager is Ex.OP-A in support the case of the opposite parties. He deposed that the motorcycle design team is well equipped with high-end CAD/CAM workstations and latest modeling software. Continuous rigorous testing of motorcycles and components is carried out by OP no.3 in its product development testing lab to come up with more improvements in enhancing the customer experience. It is evident that the complaint has been filed by complainant with sole intention of extorting money from OPs. At the time of booking and delivery warranty booklet is provided to complainant and it is specifically mentioned in the booklet that “RE will replace or repair defective part (s) at their dealership and authorized service centre, free of charge within a period of 24 months or 20,000 kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier.” He further deposed that  no complaint  related to engine noise was reported. The claims made by the complainant in the complaint are baseless. There is no manufacturing defect in her bike whatsoever. The motorcycle in question is in good and roadworthy condition and suffers from no defect.  OPs are ready to get technical inspection of the vehicle by some accredited like PEC Chandigarh. Ex.OP-1 is special power of attorney. Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3 are customer satisfaction notes and closed the evidence.

7.                 Opposite parties stated at bar on 12.07.2019 before this Forum that they have examined the motorcycle in question and make it defect free and now it is running OK. After making necessary repair regarding problem of noise in the motorcycle by OPs the same is persisted. Therefore, this Forum came to this conclusion that the motorcycle in question handed over to one Sukhdeep Singh for making proper report. He checked the motorcycle in question bearing registration no. PB07-BD-4580 and plied the same on road. He stated that the meter reading of the vehicle in question as 15071.9 and after testing the same by him the meter reading till today as 15422.6. During long driving, he found that noise from the engine of the above said motorcycle  very loudly. He also prepared CD in this regard, same is placed on record. This problem of noise started in the motorcycle in question after running 150 km.

8.                 From perusal of evidence on the record and hearing respective pleadings of the parties, it is established fact that the complainant purchased the above said motorcycle in question on 22.11.2016 for amount of Rs.1,33,300/-  for her personal use from OP no.1. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 01.10.2018. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint within warranty period. But the above said motorcycle in question never worked properly from the day of its purchase due to manufacturing defect in the engine of the motorcycle. On the other hand, OPs refute  the allegations of the complainant. OPs stated the motorcycle design team is well equipped with high-end CAD/CAM workstations and latest modeling software. Continuous rigorous testing of motorcycles and components is carried out by OP no.3 in its product development testing lab to come up with more improvements in enhancing the customer experience. OPs denied any manufacturing defect existed in the above said motorcycle.

9.                 The case law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Tata Motors Ltd. versus Bishamber Nath Sikka and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 306 is applicable in the present case, wherein it has been held that it is very clear that vehicle did suffer from defects, as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time. The owner of the vehicle is not expected to take such vehicle to the workshop a number of times, unless the vehicle suffers from a genuine defect. It becomes duty of the manufacturer as well as dealer to solve the problem of the complainant and ensure that the vehicle is delivered back to him in a road-worthy condition free from all defects. Similarly, the case law relied upon by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. versus Dr. Koneru Satya Kishre and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 564-65 that  a defect in a vehicle may come under the category of ‘manufacturing defect’ or otherwise, a vehicle is said to be suffering from defect, it there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality , quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any law in force. It would be seen from above that whether the defect in the vehicle qualified to be called a ‘manufacturing defect’ or not, it was duty of the OPs to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to complainant in a road-worthy condition.        Both above cited judgments are applicable in this case. In the above citations Hon’ble National Commission upheld the case of the State Commission.

10.               As per document Ex.C-12 terms and conditions of the Royal Enfield Motorcycle, it is clear that during the warranty period, REs obligations shall be limited to repairing/replacing parts of the motorcycle for free, only if the parts, on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect. Defective parts which have been replaced will become the sole property of RE.

11.               The complainant has purchased the motorcycle in question on 22.11.2016 and filed the present complaint on 01.10.2018. The warranty of the above said vehicle given to complainant by OPs of  two years from the date of purchase of above said motorcycle. So, it is clear that the complainant filed the present complaint within warranty period.

12.               From perusal of above cited judgments and terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.C-12 placed on record, it is clear that OPs are indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in providing the services to complainant.

13.               We are taken technical report by expert of Royal Enfield from internet that ‘Tappet noise is one of the major problem found in the Motorcycles. Tappet Noise (Tik Tik Sound) is one of the major problem in new UCE Engine of Royal Enfield Bikes. The valves are controlled using Tappet with help of tappet red, cam wheel, socker arm, so when the Tappet Noise increases the notice can be reduced by adjusting the Tappets.

14.               From considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of report of technical expert of Royal Enfield Bikes that if noise is persisted in the Bikes then its Wall Paper or Cam should be replaced. So, in circumstances of the case, we partly allow the present complaint and OPs are directed to open the whole engine of the Motorcycle and check the all the defective parts  and replace the wall paper or cam of the bike of complainant with new one free of costs within one month from receipt of copy of this order. OPs are also directed to remove the noise of Tik-Tik in the engine of the motorcycle in question and also set the timing gerari and tappeta of the engine.  If after replacement of the defective parts, the noise is persisted in the Motorcycle in question, then OPs are liable to replace the old engine with new one. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation. The concerned clerk of this Forum is directed to deliver the CD, which has been prepared by one Sukhdeep Singh to OPs against proper receipt by them.

15.               The compliance of the order be made within a period of one month from receipt of certified of this order.

16.               File be indexed and consigned to record room.

17.               Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:07.08.2019

                             (Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Kuljit Singh)

                                 Member                                  President