BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 11/12/2014

Date of Order : 20/07/2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 913/2014

Between

And

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

The complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Classic 350 Motor Cycle from the 2^nd opposite party on 28-03-2014 for Rs. 1,21,053/-. One year warranty was provided to the vehicle by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer. Time and again, the complainant had to approach the 2^nd opposite party to get the defects of the motor cycle rectified. The recurring defects of the motor cycle were due to its inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant contended that he is entitled to get refund of the vehicle from the opposite parties with interest @ 12% p.a. together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

2. The opposite parties were served with notice of this complaint, but they did not respond to the same. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 and A2 series (Four in numbers) were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

3. The issues that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the motor bike with interest?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?

4. Issue Nos. i. and ii. :- The complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Classic 350 Black Motor Bike from the 2^nd opposite party on 28-03-2014 at the price of Rs. 1,21,053/-, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, as evident from Ext. A1 tax invoice. According to the complainant, he had to approach the 2^nd opposite party repeatedly due to the recurring defects of the vehicle. Eventhough, the definite case of the complainant is that the motor bike was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, no expert opinion is produced before the Forum to substantiate the same. Ext. A2 series (4 in numbers) would go to show that on 23-04-2014, 24-09-2014 and 22-10-2014, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the repair of various defects of the vehicle. According to the Hon'ble supreme Court, if the defects of the vehicle can be repaired by replacement of the defective parts, replacement of the vehicle as such is not required (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. AIR 2006 (SC) 1586). Ext. A2 series would go to show that on the three occasions, the complainant had to approach the 2^nd opposite party to get the defects repaired and he had to expend a sum of Rs. 2,816/-, that too within the warranty period of the vehicle. No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the reason for the recurring defects of the vehicle. Naturally, the complainant had to suffer inconveniences, mental agony, especially when, the complainant's vehicle is a brand new one. Therefore, we find that the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the price of the vehicle for the reasons stated above. However, we think that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is enough to mitigate the grievances of the complainant. Needless to say, which includes the costs of the proceedings.

5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant, for the reasons narrated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount ordered shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date till the date of realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of July 2015

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil