Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/78/2013

Bodingari Lava Kumar, S/o. Bodingari Pattabhi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Gnandeep,Service Manager , - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Dec 2014

ORDER

Filing Date:09.05.2013

Order Date: 20.12.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

     PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

SATURDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.78/2013

 

Between

 

Mr. Bodingari Lava kumar,

S/o. Bodingari Pattabhi Reddy,

20-3-1-12/2, Bhupal Nagar (Behind Siva Jyothi Nagar),

Tirupati,

Andhra Pradesh – 517 501.                                                                        … Complainant

 

And

 

1.         M. Gnandeep,

            Service Manager,

            Sri Sai Motros,

            11-28, Renigunta Road,

            Tiruapti,

            Andhra Pradesh – 517 501.

 

2.         M.Vijay Kumar,

            Proprietor,

            Sri Sai Motors,

            # 22-251, Kattamanchi,

            Chittoor,

            Andhra Pradesh – 517 001.

 

3.         Managing Director,

            Royal Enfield,

            A Unit of Eicher Motors Limited,

            Tiruvottiyur High Road,

            Tiruvottiyur,

            Chennai,

            Tamil Nadu – 600 019.                                                        …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 15.09.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Lava Kumar, party-in-person for complainant, and Sri.V.Lokanadha Reddy, counsel for the opposite parties, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.The brief facts of the case are :- The complainant purchased Royal Enfield motorcycle on 21.09.2013 from opposite party No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.1,32,431/-. The said motorcycle is having warranty period of 12 months. From the day one, while riding the motorcycle, the complainant experienced severe wobbling, weird engine noise, rear fender rubbing against rear tyre, non-functioning of brake light, wheels not rotating freely and jerking problems in his motorcycle. Next day i.e. on 22.09.2013, he approached the opposite party No.1 (service center), but they informed him that the reported issues will be resolved during first service or after the motorcycle completes the running of 500 kms. The complainant approached the opposite parties twice before the first service, but they gave the same response. On 01.10.2013, he took the motorcycle for first service and reported all the issues, but the opposite party failed to rectify the above said defects. After the first service also the complainant experienced the same problems even though services done by the mechanics of Visakhapatnam, Guntur and opposite party No.3 mechanic of Chennai. The complainant has been experiencing the issues in the motorcycle since day one of purchase and he waited for two long months with a hope that the motorcycle problems will get resolved, but nothing happened to his satisfaction. The opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to render services to get the problems solved. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint praying the Forum to take the defective motorcycle back and to refund the price of Rs.1,32,431/- with 12% interest and Rs.12,000/- spent towards running cost, services and accessories for motorcycle, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

3.  The opposite parties came into appearance and the 1^st opposite party filed the written version along with adoption memo of opposite parties 2 and 3 and the opposite parties admitted the fact that the complainant purchased the motorcycle and it is also admitted that the complainant availed first service on 01.10.2013 and complained certain things, which were noted in the job card in the presence of the complainant and after taking the motorcycle for service, they rectified all the complaints made by the complainant and re-delivered the motorcycle on the same day evening after final quality inspection and the complainant subscribed his signature in the said quality inspection report and taken delivery of the vehicle in question with full condition and though the complainant partly dissatisfied and subsequently approached opposite party No.1 again on 24.10.2013 with certain complaints and the same were also noted down by this opposite party under job card dt:24.10.2013 and on the same day after rectifying the defects complained by the complainant delivered the motorcycle to the complainant and he signed in the customer satisfaction note by satisfying with the performance of the motorcycle after test drive. The opposite party contended that subsequent to 24.10.2013, at no point of time, the complainant approached them complaining any defects with regard to his motorcycle and they never advised him to take his motorcycle for service either to Guntur, Nellore, Chennai and Visakhapatnam or any other place as alleged by the complainant. He himself took the motorcycle to different service centres without the knowledge of this opposite party. Hence, they are no way concern with the service availed by the complainant in Nellore and any other place. However, this opposite party obtained job card from Nellore service centre and hence the opposite party attended the complaints in the motorcycle and rendered the service properly and hence there is no deficiency in service and there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.  The complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A14 and opposite party No.3 filed evidence affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B4. Both parties filed their written arguments and we have heard the oral arguments.

5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether the motorcycle sold by the 1^st opposite party is defective in

       nature?      

(ii)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

        parties towards the complainant?

(iii). To what relief?

6.  Point No.(i):-  The opposite party admitted the sale of motorcycle to the complainant under Ex.A1 and stated that the complainant took delivery of the motorcycle under Ex.A3, after satisfying the test drive and performance of the motorcycle and also contended that the complainant attended for 1^st service on 01.10.2013 under Ex.B2 and attended another service on 24.10.2013 under Ex.B3. Except these two services, he never approached opposite party No.1 by complaining any defects at any point of time and also stated that without their knowledge, he approached different service centers at Chennai and Nellore. However, they obtained the job card issued by Nellore service station and it was marked as Ex.B4. As per Exs.B2, B3 and B4 the complaints mentioned in the job cards are different from one another. As per Ex.A11 the complainant approached Chennai service station on 06.11.2013 by complaining some defects in the said motorcycle but in Ex.A11 nowhere it is mentioned that the complainant noted any complaints in the motorcycle, just he filed retail cash invoice. The complainant also filed Ex.A12 a letter dt:13.11.2014 addressed to Tirupati MRF Dealer by RISHI Motors (Royal Enfield Service Center) to check whether the front tyre of the motorcycle is defective in nature. In return the MRF Dealer, Tirupati, sent a letter dt:14.11.2013 under Ex.A13 stating that front tyre in the motorcycle is fine and there is no manufacturing defect. As per  Ex.B2 job card dt:01.10.2013, when the complainant approached for 1^st service, he covered 500 k.m. and when the complainant approached for second time dt:24.10.2013 under Ex.B3 job card, he covered 2177 k.m. and in the job card under Ex.B4 Nellore service station dt:13.11.2013 the reading mentioned as 3561 k.m. This itself clearly shows that the complainant continuously drove the motorcycle and within a span of one month 16 days, he covered 3561 k.m. This itself clearly shows that the motorcycle in question is not having any manufacturing defect. If at all there is any manufacturing defect, how he can drove the motorcycle for such a long distances. The complainant filed Exs. A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A10 and A14 correspondence through e-mails between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3. Those mails are regarding the issues complained by the complainant to opposite parties, by these mails we cannot come to the conclusion that the said motorcycle is having manufacturing defect. He has not filed any corroborative evidence to prove the motorcycle in question is having manufacturing defect. The complainant could not place any record to establish that the motorcycle is having manufacturing defect. There is no evidence of any qualified person to establish the manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. Hence, there is no material to establish the manufacturing defect in the said motorcycle. Hence, this point is answered against the complainant.

7.  Point No.(ii):-  As per Exs.B2 and B3 job cards dt:01.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 the complainant endorsed “partially dissatisfied”. It clearly indicates that the opposite parties have not rendered their services properly as expected by the complainant and also not responded properly. It is the duty of the service provideres and dealers to show some sort of respect towards their customers and to do the service up to the satisfaction of the customers. But in this particular case, it clearly shows the negligent attitude of the opposite party towards the complainant. In order to gain profits and to promote sales, they will show much interest towards sales rather than the service. After sales, they are not providing services to the satisfaction of the customers, which leads to unfair trade practice. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our findings on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,000/- since there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is also entitled to the costs of the litigation. Accordingly, the complaint is to be allowed in part.  

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs. Rest of the claim is dismissed. The opposite parties have to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order. If the opposite parties fails to pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/- within stipulated time of 6 weeks, it carries interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.    

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 20^th day of December, 2014.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                     President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

 

PW-1: Bodingari Lava Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-1: M.Gnanadeep (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	28.10.2013	A Photocopy of motorcycle invoice issued by Opposite Party.No.2. to the complainant, dated Oct 28th 2013.
2.	10.09.2013	A Photocopy of motorcycle cost breakup, issued by O.P.No.1 to the complainant, dated Sep 10th  2013
3.	21.09.2013	A Photocopy of motorcycle delivery note issued by Opposite Party.No.1 to the Complainant, dated Sep 21st 2013.
4.	26.09.2013	A Photocopy of an email, dated Sep 26th 2013, from complainant to O.P.No.1. requesting them to resolve the listed out motorcycle issues.
5.	01.10.2013	A Photocopy of an email, dated Oct 1st 2013, from complainant to O.P.No.3 customer service requesting them to resolve the motorcycle issues.
6.	01.10.2013	A photocopy of motorcycle first service bill issued by O.P.No.1 to the complainant, dated Oct 1st 2013.
7.	05.10.2013	A photocopy of an email, dated Oct 5th 2013, from complainant to O.P.No.1, O.P.No.3 customer service requesting them to resolve the listed out motorcycle issues.
8.	23.10.2013	A photocopy of an email, dated Oct 23rd 2013, from complainant to O.P.No.3 territory service manager Mr.Bhanu Prakash requesting him to look in to the motorcycle issues.
9.	25.10.2013	A photocopy of an email, dated Oct 25th 2013, from complainant to OP.No.3 customer service explaining the service experience and motor cycle issues.
10.	25.10.2013	A photocopy of an email, dated Oct 25th 2013, from O.P.No.3 customer service to complainant saying that a complaint has been registered.
11.	06.11.2013	A photocopy of motorcycle second service bill issued by Chennai OMR service centre, dated Nov 6th 2013.
12.	13.11.2013	A photocopy of letter, dated Nov 13th 2013, from Royal Enfield service center, Nellore stating that stock front tyre in the motorcycle is defective.
13.	14.11.2013	A photocopy of letter, dated Nov 14th 2013, from “Tirupati Tyre world ,MRF dealer,Tirupati” stating that the front stock tyre in the Motor cycle is fine.
14.	14.11.2013	A photocopy of an email from complainant to O.P.No.3 customer service detailing the unresolved issues in motorcycle, dated Nov 14th 2013.

        

 

       EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

          

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	21.09.2013	A Photo copy of Vehicle delivery note of Sri Sai Motors.
2.	01.10.2013	A Original copy of Job Card with final Quality Inspection Receipt. Job Card No.2402.
3.	24.10.2013	A Original copy of Job Card with Customer satisfaction Note. Job Card No.2557.
4.	13.11.2013	A Photo copy of Job Card maintained by Rishi Motors, Nellore. Job Card No.2483.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                                   President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.   

 

    

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.