SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.

          Complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a new Bullet Motor cycle named  Royal Enfield  as per bill dated 16.7.08  from the first opp.party  for Rs.94,488/-  that the 2^nd opp.party is the manufacturer , that from the date of purchase  the vehicle was  not performing well,  that on 23.8.08  the vehicle was produced  before the first opp.party  for first free service , that  the cash bill on first service was a shock to the complainant , that  as per the specifications of the motor cycle the engine oil tank capacity of the vehicle is 2.25 liters, that in the cash bill  it is seen that  engine oil of 3 liters  is shown as  consumed and charged, that it is an unfair trade practice, that on 27.9.08  the engine of the vehicle failed  near Kuthirichira but on intimation first opp.party has not turned up , that the complainant suffered much to bring the vehicle  to Punalur  and to keep it in a safe place , that on 30.9.08  a person by name Babu from the first opp.party reached there  and removed the vehicle to first opp.party’s service centre, that the vehicle  not returned curing defect, that the  delay in curing the defect would show that  it is an incurable manufacturing defect  and hence  this complaint  to pass an order directing the opp.parties  to replace the defective motor cycle with a new one  to the complainant or to refund Rs.94,488/-  with interest at 18% per annum and to allow compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and to allow  costs of the proceedings.

          Opp.parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed separate versions  raising  more or less the similar contentions .  It is contended that  the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts, that the Royal Enfield Motor Cycle  manufactured by the  2^nd opp.party  is free from manufacturing and mechanical defects, that if the vehicle was not performing well  it is purely  because of the misuse of the said vehicle  by the complainant, that  the  Engine Oil Tank capacity of the vehicle  is 2.5 liters, that  in addition to it  in every service .5 liter engine oil  is used as  clutch oil  and it is also needed  as a lubricant in accelerator cable  and rear chain , that  as per the stipulations provided by the manufacturer  in every free service,  labour charges alone is free  and the complainant is bound to remit  the oil charges, that on 29.9.08  complainant over telephone  informed first opp.party that the vehicle had a starting trouble and on the next day itself mechanic of the first opp.party  inspected the vehicle  and found that starter and pulser coil of the vehicle  is defective  and brought the vehicle to the first opp.party’s workshop and changed starter and pulerr coil in free of cost  and so the vehicle is in good condition on 30.9.08 itself  and requested the complainant  to take back the vehicle  but instead of taking back the vehicle complainant demanded Rs.10000/- as compensation from the  first opp.party,  that on a general check up it is found that the said vehicle has no mechanical defect and it was taken by the complainant  after recording  his full satisfaction and this case  is only to be dismissed

The points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties?

2.     Reliefs and costs.?

For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Exts.P1 to P9 and C1

For the opp.parties DWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exts. D1 to D5.

The points:

It is the admitted case of the parties that  the complainant purchased a new Bullet Motor Cycle named Royal Enfield bearing Reg.No. KL-25/A 887 on  16.7.08 from first opp.party which was manufactured by 2^nd opp.party .   Since  the vehicle was not performing well  alleging deficiency in service and manufacturing defect  this complaint.  The contentions are two fold .  First contention is that there is no deficiency in service and 2^nd contention is that there is no manufacturing defect. To attract  the allegation that  there is deficiency in service complainant’s  case in the complaint is that  Ext.P5 bill was a shock to him because  as per the specifications  of the motor cycle  the engine oil tank  capacity of the vehicle is 2.25 liters  and in Ext. P5 bill it is seen  that  engine oil of 3 liters  is shown as consumed and charged.   It is controverted by opp.parties stating that  Engine oil tank capacity of the Royal Enfield Motor cycle  is 2.5 liters  and in addition to it  in every service  .5 liter engine oil is used  as clutch oil  and it is also needed  as a lubricant  in Accelerator cable  and rear chain .  In this case after filing the complaint, the complainant  has not turned up to swear about his case.  One Biju Thankachan  was examined as PW.1  as the authorized agent  of complainant    Ext. P1 is the authorization .  What prevented the complainant  to swear before the forum  not made mention of in Ext. P1 .  It is not a power of attorney authorizing PW.1  to swear about  complainant’s case.   Moreover his admitted  signature  in the complaint  and vakalath dated 10.10.2008  not talleys  with his alleged signature in Ext.P1 .  So also  his admitted signature in the complaint  and vakalath dated 12.10.2008 not talleys with his additional vakalath to Advocate Sreeraj dated 5.10.12. At this juncture the complainant ought to have entered the box  to swear about his alleged grievances .  In the chief affidavit put in  by Biju Thankachan, he has a case that “ 2.5 enäÀ am{Xw F©n³ Hmbn I¸m-knän Dff Sn hml-\-¯n\v 3 enäÀ  F©n³ Hmbn D]-tbm-Kn-¨-Xmbn  H¶mw FXr-I£n _n \ÂIn-b-Xv.

    It follows that   the complainant and Biju Thankachan has no consistent case  about the capacity of the engine oil tank .  On the other hand  DW.1 in chief affidavit stated that “Even though engine oil tank capacity is 2.5 liter  engine oil of 3 liter is needed  for every service.”  . This point not seen cross examined by the complainant.  So  on going through Ext.P5 alone  it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service .

Then we can go to the next limb of argument , whether there is any manufacturing defect?  Even though  the case of the complainant is that  the vehicle was not performing well  from the very beginning PW.1 would swear before the forum that “ hml-\-¯nsâ  defects   s\Ip-dn-¨pvBZ-y-ambn  Ad-nbp-¶-Xpv27..9..2008- em-Wpv”Further down he would swear before the forum that 1^st  service time   510 KM  hml\w HmSn-bn-cp-¶p.   “1^st service \pv   sImSp¯ Znhkw Xs¶ deliver r\S-¯n-bn-cp¶p   1^st service \p tijw hml\w full satisfaction \pv tij-am-Wpv hml\w sIm­p-t]m-b-Xpv”Further down he would swear before the forum that “h­n Ct¶ Znhkw hsc  3000 K.M  \pv IqSp-X HmSn-bn-«p-­pv” Expert in this case  who filed Ext. C1 report would swear before the forum that  “disputed vehicle inspect sN¿p-hm-\p-ff Fs´-¦nepw ]co-io-e\w In«n-bn-«pt­m ?  CÔFurther down he would swear before the forum as DW.2 that “Ext. C1{]Imcw     opp.party bpsS    representative vehicle Ahn-sS-h¨v  start sNbvXn-cp-¶p”.  Ext. C1 also is not specific  as to  whether there is any manufacturing defect. DW.2 would swear before the Forum that “Ext C1 {]Imcw  self  starting  failure   sâ exact reason ]d-bp-hm³ ]änÃ.”  Taking the evidence as a whole we can see that there is no  evidence  to show that there is any manufacturing defect and the complaints solved by changing the starter and pulser coil in free of cost  and the complainant taken back the vehicle  only after getting Ext. D1 letter from the first opp.party . Complainant has no case  that  after taking back the vehicle on getting Ext. D1  the vehicle has  any starting trouble.   Following

the above discussion we have no hesitation to safely conclude that there is  no deficiency in service and there is no manufacturing defect.

     In the result the complaint is dismissed but without cost.

Dated this the 12..12..2012.

I N D E X

List of witness for the complainant 

PW.1. – Biju

List of documents for the complainant

P1.Authorisation

P2. – Cash receipt voucher dated14..7..08

P3. – Cash receipt voucher dated16..7..08

P4. – Vehicle sale bill  dated 16..7..08

P5. – Cash bill dated 23.8.08

P6. – Pick up van bill 30.9.08

P7. – Battery charging bill dated 14..11.2008

P8. – Letter dated26..11..2008

P9. – Owner;s manual

C1. – Commission report

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – Ramesh

DW.2. – Vinu Viswan

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Letter sent by Marikar Morots Ltd to the complainant dt. 4.3.2009

D2. – Job card dated 23.8.08

D3. – Job card dated 30.9.08

D4. – Job card dated 18..11.2008

D5. – Jobb card dated 18.4.09