In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.   60 / 2010.

1)                   Mr. Jayanta Mukherjee,

80, Jatin Das Road, Kolkata-700029.                                                       ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   M/s. East India Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

47-C, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017.

2)                   M/s. Royal Enfield

Represented by the Manager, Customer Service,

A Unit of M/s. Eichar Motors Limited,

Tiruvottiyur High Road, Chennai-600019.                                                 ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   25    Dated 30/04/2012.

The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Mr. Jayanta Mukherjee against the o.ps. M/s. East India Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Bullet, 350 cc, Thunder Bird o/s “EBD” Model 12 volts from o.p. no.1 at a cost of Rs.1,04,529/- and this position has not been denied by o.ps. After using the said vehicle complainant felt some difficulties and defects in the said vehicle and on 21.3.09 complainant reported to the mechanic to provide effort to remove the defects but the said mechanic could not remove the defects and subsequently complainant noticed further various defects in the said vehicle and finally o.ps. took the vehicle for repair that the intervention of this Forum as was submitted by ld. lawyer of o.ps. and in the course of argument ld. lawyer of complainant apprised this Forum that the said vehicle is still lying with o.ps. and complainant reluctant to take it back and prayed for refund of the amount for the purchase of  the vehicle in question together with compensation and litigation cost. It is the case of the complainant in particular that during the period from 8.8.09 after purchase and 12.8.09 o.p. failed and neglected to remove the defects of the vehicle reported by complainant.

O.ps. had entered their appearances by filing w/v and undertaken to repair the vehicle, but fact remains that the said vehicle is still now lying with the o.ps.

Decision with reasons:

We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and documents in particular and it is an admitted position that some defects cropped up immediately after purchase of the vehicle in question by complainant and matter was reported to o.ps. but defects could not removed by o.ps. and the vehicle in question is still lying with o.ps. for want of certification to the effect that the vehicle in question is in order.

In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that there is deficiency on the part of o.ps. being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

Hence, ordered,

That the petition of complainant is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,04,529/- (Rupees one lakh four thousand five hundred twenty nine) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of realization and are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization .

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

   _____Sd-_______               ______Sd-________          ______Sd-________

     MEMBER                            MEMBER                        PRESIDENT