The present complaint is regarding non removal of defects in Motorcycle Royal Enfield Classic 500 BS IV, Colour Desert Storm bearing Engine No.U5S5FOHF- 203828, Chassis No.ME3U5S5F1HF 109644 purchased for a sum of Rs.1,80,002/- from opposite party no.1 on 16.8.2017. Besides this, the complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.6397/- to the opposite party no.1 against Insurance of the said vehicle and also paid the sum for preparation of Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question. The complainant has paid the total sum of Rs.1,97,800/- to the opposite party no.1 in total. The Registration Number of the said vehicle allotted to the complainant is PB-06-AN-2728. The complainant has alleged that right from the day of the delivery of the motorcycle there was problem in the self of the motorcycle as it does not functioning properly. The complainant got the abovesaid problem noted to the agency. The agency told the complainant that the battery of the vehicle is not fully charged and as the vehicle was lying idle in the agency so complainant to ply the said vehicle on the road for10/15 K.M. then the battery would automatically charged but the problem remained. The complainant visited the workshop of opposite party no.1 on 18.8.2017 with the same defect and opposite parties replaced the battery of the said motorcycle. Complainant has further alleged that on 23.8.2017 motorcycle became totally dead and on 24.8.2017 the mechanic of opposite party no.1 assured the complainant that the defect of the charger of the motorcycle will be removed by changing its parts and the same have been requisitioned from opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3. Since the motorcycle was not working so it remained with opposite party no.1 for about 11 days and complainant visited the agency of opposite party no.1 6/7 times during this time. Ultimately charger was changed for the motorcycle by opposite party no.1 after receiving the same from opposite party no.2 but the defect persisted. Again the opposite partyno.1 told the complainant that alternator of the motorcycle needs to be changed and the same was changed with new one after 13 days. After 2/3 days of uses the same problem persisted on and 4.9.2017 complainant got his motorcycle serviced and also reported the defect in the motorcycle to opposite party no.1 and the same was recorded in Job Card No.3688 of the even date when reading of the motorcycle was 467. Thereafter opposite party no.1 was alleging therein that there may be defect in the wiring of the motorcycle in question and would need a change. Complainant is not able to ply the motorcycle on road and has alleged that he is under depression because people are joking/making mockery for having him to purchased a costly motorcycle which is not functioning properly. Complainant further states that the mechanic of the opposite party no.1 has verbally told him that nature of defect is manufacturing defect which opposite party is not admitting but is experimenting with the motorcycle and complainant is made to suffer on account of deficiency of service of opposite party no.1. Complainant has prayed that opposite party no.1 to handover a new Bullet Motorcycle since there is manufacturing defect in the motorcycle which cannot be removed and also has sought compensation on account of litigation for having suffered mentally and physically harassment at the hands of the opposite party no.1.
2. Opposite party no.1 has denied all these allegations as alleged by the complainant and has assured to provide service for the motorcycle inconformity to terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty book issued by Royal Enfield. Opposite party no.1 has denied that on 16.8.2017 any complaint was made regarding the defect in the motorcycle. Opposite party no.1 admits that on 18.8.2017 complainant came to the workshop and battery of the motorcycle was found faulty and was replaced and Job Card was prepared thereof attached as Ex.OP-1. Opposite party no.1 has denied on 24.08.2017 complainant came to the workshop with a defect in its charger. He further certified that on 4.9.2017 complainant’s motorcycle was provided first free service and Job Card so prepared is attached as Ex.OP-2. Opposite party no.1 further denies that the motorcycle remained with the agency for 11 days and also regarding complainant visiting the agency 6-7 times during this period. Opposite party no.1 further states that on 2.10.2017 complainant came with said defect in the meter reading of 1464 Kms and same was handed over to complainant in O.K. condition. Prior to that on 4.9.2017 motorcycle was serviced against Job Card No.3688 Ex.OP-2 and was received by complainant being fully satisfied. Opposite party no.1 has denied that there was manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. Further opposite party no.1 states that on 27.10.2017 the complainant again reported that battery problem with the meter reading 2527 Kms and Job Card No.5054 was prepared thereof and its starter coil and RR Unit were found O.K. and it was advised to complainant “In order to remove the defect of charging, the complainant was suggested to replace the electric wiring but he responded that he would get it changed if whenever he deems fit and expedient.” It was particularly mentioned that the wiring mentioned above was to be replaced free of cost in terms of the warranty of the Motorcycle. Second free service was provided on 7.11.2017 with meter reading at 2968 Kms. Opposite party no.1 has countered alleged that complainant demanded replacement of motorcycle under guise of false complaint and there is no such provisions for the same and opposite party no.1 is prepared to provide all services to the motorcycle during the warranty period as per terms and conditions of Royal Enfield.
3. Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
4. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jatinder Singh Kahlon Proprietor Ex.OPW-1 and of Sh.Vishwash Sharma Area Manager (Service) Ex.OPW-2 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.
5. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; written arguments as well as oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. Complainant has failed to prove on record manufacturing defect if any by leading any cogent evidence in the shape of expert opinion/report. Opposite party has also asserted in the written statement that, only electrical wiring of the motorcycle in question needs to be replaced. Since battery etc. has already been replaced. Moreover, opposite party has brought to the notice that the vehicle has run for over 34000 km, so we deem it appropriate to dispose it off by giving directions to the parties. The complainant is directed to hand over his motorcycle at opposite party's workshop within a period of 15 days from the receipt of copy of the order. The opposite party shall effect required repairs if any and even replace the defective wiring at their own expenses within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the motorcycle of the complainant. For the inconvenience and hardship faced by the complainant a compensation of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to complainant to be paid for by opposite party within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which an additional interest of 9% P.A. shall be levied from date of order till actual realisation.
8. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Raghbir Singh Sukhija)
May 19, 2022 Member
*MK*
