DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2023
Filed on: 01/03/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 93/2018
Between
COMPLAINANT
Pradeesh P.M., Prince Cottage, Kudaveechoor P.O., Sasthakulam, Vaikom.
(Rep. by Adv. Sajeev R., XL/101, Govt. Press Road, Cochin – 11)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
M/s. Royal Enfield, Unit of Either Motors ltd., 25/85, A, B, C & D, Opp. Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Edappally P.O., Kochi – 24
(Rep. by Adv. Sharan Shahier, MTS Legal, D-7, 2nd Floor, Metro Plaza, Market Road, Ernakulam 682018)
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had purchased a brand new Royal Enfield Bullet-350-ES BLAC BS IV Motorcycle with HDFC Bank Ltd. As financiers vide invoice No. INV 10009917180129 dated 26/10/2017 from the opposite party at the invoice price of Rs.1,26,929.86. The complainant had spent Rs.12,693/- as Road Tax, Rs.3,782/- as Insurance Charges for the vehicle, Rs.815/- as Insurance charges and Rs.600/- as Registration charges. Thus the total on road price came to Rs.1,44,820/-. On the way from the showroom to the complainant’s place itself the vehicle had shown serious manufacturing defects. The vehicle stopped abruptly after every 2 to 3 kms. This fact was reported to the opposite party and they took away the vehicle and had promised to replace the defective part. The opposite party returned the vehicle only on 06/11/2017. Again on the same day itself the vehicle showed the same defect stopping on midway at the centre of the road while driving causing serious hazards and threat to the life and safety of the complainant and other road users. This fact was intimated to the opposite party through e-mail dated 05/11/2017, 06/11/2017. Instead of taking the vehicle for necessary rectification, opposite party wanted the complainant to bring the vehicle to its showroom at the cost of complainant for repair. Since the complainant couldn’t do so the opposite party closed the complaint accusing the complainant non-compliance of their direction and intimated the complainant by their e-mail dated 08/11/2017 that the complaint is closed. On 18/11/2017 the complainant sent an e-mail to the opposite party demanding the refund of entire expenses narrating all the facts. The opposite party offered a Performa reply to the said complaint on 19/11/2017. Finally on 14/12/2017 a representative of the opposite party took away the vehicle from the complainant. Thereafter there has not been any communication to the complainant from the opposite party in the matter.
The complainant choose to buy his dream vehicle from the opposite party on the belief that it is reputed company manufacturing good quality vehicles and that their after sales service would be excellent. The complainant states that he had lost all confidence and faith on the opposite party and therefore is not willing to continue any relation with the opposite party. The complainant also stated that the opposite party had utter failure in their responsibility and duties as manufacturer and service provider to their customers ie. the complainant by selling utterly defective product and therefore liable for all relief claimed by the complainant. Hence the complainant approached this Commission to readdress his grievances and to get refund of Rs.1,44,820/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 26/10/2017 to the date of payment, Rs.10,000/- as damages to the complainant along with cost of proceedings.
2 Notice :
Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission and the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3 Version:
The Complaint is not maintainable either under law or facts. The complainant has not disclosed any cause of action against the opposite party. The complainant can’t alleged manufacturing defects without any technical expertise nor getting the issue certified from the technical expert commissioner. The opposite party is a unit of Eicher Motors Limited and has been a pioneer of powerful four stroke technology since 1955 in India. With its manufacturing base in Chennai, India, opposite party offers a variety of models catering to the needs of the traditional segments, the enthusiasts, the leisure bikers and the urban youth. Opposite party manufactures quality bikes that are well known worldwide for their reliability and toughness. Opposite party has state-of-the-art infrastructure to manufacture the same and also has an active in-house Research & Development wing. Bikes manufactured by opposite party are very popular and usually require one to two months advance booking. Continuous rigorous testing of motorcycles and components is carried out by the opposite party in its Product Development Testing lab to come up with more improvements in enhancing the customer experience. The opposite party exports motorcycles to 94 countries like the USA, Japan, UAE, Korea, Bahrain, UK, France, Germany, Argentine and many other countries through 92 importers and opposite party has a wide network of 12 Brand Stores, 600 dealers in all major cities and towns, 5 dedicated gear stores and over 200 authorized service centres. Opposite party sells more than 60000-65000 bikes per month and more than 8 lakh bikes in a year. Owing to the popularity of the opposite party, most of the bike models have to be booked one to two months in advance. The customer at the time of booking and delivery is provided with a warranty booklet. Warranty guideline states that warranty does not apply to electrical equipment which are subjected to normal wear and tear. Warranty guideline specifically stated that the obligation of opposite party is only limited to repair or replacing part(s) of the vehicle for free, only if the part(s) on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect.
Opposite party provided full support and assistance to the complainant at all time. There is no manufacturing defect in his bike. Complainant’s vehicle is in good and roadworthy condition and suffers from no defects at all. The continuously increasing odometer of the bike of the complainant shows that the bike is in perfect running condition and the same is regularly used by the complainant. The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint based on the above contentions.
4 Evidence:
The case was posted for evidence of the complainant on 24/04/2020 and then adjourned to so many times due to Covid pandemic situation and thereafter the case posted for evidence of the complainant to 26/02/2021, 22/09/2021 and 12/10/2021. The complainant was absent on all these posting dates and the Commission issued notice to the counsel for the complainant to appear before commission and to adduce any evidence, proof affidavit if any. The notice sent to the counsel for the complainant is seen served but the complainant has not turned up on subsequent posting date on 09/12/2021 and 15/02/2022 and the case posted for evidence of the complainant to 03/03/2022 as very last chance. On 03/03/2022 when the case is taken there was no representation from the side of complainant, the Office of the Commission tried to contact the counsel who filed Vakalth for the complainant, but he did not answer the call. On verification of the records filed by the complainant it seen that complainant had filed 11 documents along with the complaint. Since the complainant is absenting continuously and he is not interested to come before the Commission to adduce evidence the case is posted for evidence of opposite party to 25/04/2022. Opposite party has not produced any documentary evidence. Heard the counsel for opposite party.
5. Issues:
- Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of ops towards the complainant?
- If so, reliefs and compensation?
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a brand new Royal Enfield Bullet-350-ES BLAC BS IV Motorcycle from the opposite party. On the way from the showroom to the complainant’s place itself the vehicle showed serious manufacturing defects. This fact was reported to the opposite party and they took away the vehicle and had promised to replace the defective part. The opposite party returned the vehicle only on 06/11/2017. Again on the same day itself the vehicle showed the same defect. This fact was intimated to the opposite party through e-mail dated 05/11/2017, 06/11/2017. Instead of taking the vehicle for necessary rectification, opposite party wanted the complainant to bring the vehicle to its showroom at the cost of complainant for repair. Since the complainant couldn’t do so the opposite party closed the complaint accusing the complainant non-compliance of their direction and intimated the complainant by their e-mail dated 08/11/2017 that the complaint is closed. On 18/11/2017 the complainant sent an e-mail to the opposite party demanding the refund of entire expenses narrating all the facts. On 14/12/2017 a representative of the opposite party took away the vehicle from the complainant. Thereafter there has not been any communication to the complainant from the opposite party in the matter.
When the case is posted for evidence of the complainant, the complainant has not turned up before the Commission to mark the documents filed by him for considering his complaint and to prove his allegation against the opposite party. In this case the complainant had not filed proof affidavit. Without filing the proof affidavit of the complainant, the Commission cannot rely upon the documents filed by the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle purchased from the opposite party having serious manufacturing defects. An expert opinion is necessary to prove the manufacturing defect. Since the complainant is absenting continuously, nothing has been done by the complainant to prove his allegation.
In the absence of sufficient documents no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved towards the complainant by the opposite party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dated this the 30th day of September,2023.
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
D.B.Binu, President
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 93/2018
Order Date: 30/09/2023
