Dated this the 22^nd day of June  2013

 

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

Vinod Pisharody,

S/o.Ramachandran,

Residing at

5/300, Bhama Mandiram,

Cheraya (PO),

Kongad, Palakkad – 678 631                            -       Complainant

(By Adv.M.P.Ravi)

V/s

 

1.The Managing Director,

 (By Adv.M.Dhamodharan)

 

2.The Manager,

 

3.The Manager,

  Koonamthai, Edappally,

(By Adv.M.Dhamodharan)

 

4.The Manager,

 Cochin – 682 035                       -       Opposite parties

 

By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT.

 

Complaint in brief:

 

Complainant had purchased an Enfield Bullet bearing Eng.No.U3K5COBA050027 from the 2^nd opposite party which is  manufactured by the 1^st opposite party by spending a sum of Rs.1 lakh on 4/2/2011. Immediately on purchasing, the complainant found that the vehicle is not upto the standard and it is having the following defects.

1.Engine noise is very high

2. The handle has got vibration when the speed is above 30km/hr.

3.Starting Trouble

4.Head Light is not working properly.

 

The complainant has pointed out these defects to the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party promised to get it repaired. They have kept the vehicle for a few days, but they have not rectified the complaints. Instead they have asked the complainant to take the vehicle to 3^rd opposite party for better service.   Accordingly the complainant took the vehicle to 3^rd opposite party, but they kept the same idle for a week  without doing any service and returned the same to the complainant. Further the service advisor has opined that the new vehicles are having  problems like this and there is nothing to be done to rectify the same. When the complainant had registered a complaint regarding all these facts to the 1^st opposite party, one of the service advisor from there asked the complainant to change the silencer for reducing the noise and the complainant had changed the same spending Rs.2,000/-. According to the complainant, inspite of that, the noise is still there in bike. Thereafter the complainant took the vehicle to the 4^th opposite party for servicing the vehicle. They have made some repairs to the vehicle, but could not rectify the defects pointed above. The complainant had given the vehicle for repair on several occasions with the opposite parties but the problems are not rectified so far. The complainant had spent more than Rs.50,000/- on different occasions for repairs.

When the opposite parties failed to rectify the mistake, even after repeated requests, complainant has issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties. Having received the notice they have issued a reply on 20/11/12 containing false and frivolous allegations.

In fact the bullet is having manufacturing defects and the 1^st opposite party is liable for that. The acts of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency of service on their part. Due to the deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties and supply of a defective vehicle to the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.50,000/- being the amount spent by him for repairs and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and in alternative he is entitled to get a brand new bullet without any defects alongwith a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

Contention of opposite parties are as follows:-

Opposite parties 1 & 3 filed version. Opposite parties 2 & 4 set exparte. Opposite parties made a total denial of the complaint. According to the opposite parties, the engine noise created is only the normal noise of the bullet standard 350 model vehicles. The vibration of the handle was only for the reason that there was excess tyre pressure in the complainant’s vehicle tyres. In the normal case, the tyre pressure has to be in the range of 20/30 in the front and back wheel respectively, and is specifically mentioned in the Owners Manual, which was not followed by the complainant. In the instance case the tyre pressure was found to be having 26/32 and since the vehicle was driven with that tyre pressure, wear and tear occurred in the tyre and the middle part of the front tyre had already been worn off and this was informed to the complainant when he brought the vehicle to the service centre. The handle vibration was only on account of the excess tyre pressure and due to the improper handling of the vehicle by the complainant. Regarding the starting trouble and improper working of headlight, both these complaints were looked into by the opposite party service centre and it was found that there was no starting trouble with the vehicle and that the headlight was also functioning properly.

The further averment that the complaints were not looked into and 2^nd opposite party  kept the vehicle idle for a week without doing any service are not true. The complainant was working at Ernakulam and without any notice he brought the vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party. It is submitted that on inspection, the staff of 3^rd opposite party service centre could not find any defects and the complainant took back the vehicle.   It was at the instance of the complainant the silencer  was changed since options were given for changing of silencers on payment. The vehicle had no defects and hence there was no question of rectifying any defects. If there are any defects in the vehicle, it was only due to the rough, careless and reckless usage of the complainant. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs to the opposite parties.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.C1.  

1.    Whether the vehicle supplied to the complainant is a defective one ?

2.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3.    Whether the  complainant is entitled for any relief  ?

Complainant purchased the bullet from opposite party on 4/2/2011 is evident from Ext.A1 and is an admitted fact. Ext.A2 lawyer notice was issued on 10/10/12 requesting rectification of the following problems.

1.High engine noise

2. Handle vibration when the speed is above 30km/hr.

3.Starting Trouble

4.Head Light not working properly etc.,

The stand of the opposite parties is that there is no problem to the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. The expert commissioner appointed has made a thorough examination of the vehicle and has filed report. The relevant portion is noted below:

1.Engine noise is high

2.Handle vibrates when speed exceeds 30 km/hr

3.Starting problem, takes time to start the vehicle

4.Head light not working properly, require focusing

 

Also noted that the above defects are due to poor workmanship. It is found that the report of the commissioner is in tune with the allegations in the complaint. One thing noted by the commissioner and not alleged by the complainant is that with respect to oil leakage. Opposite party has filed objection to commission report stating that the tyre pressure was not checked and also that  the commissioner during the period of inspection was only a pillion rider. We are of the considered view that the said objections will not stand for the reasons that the person appointed is an expert commissioner and also even   a pillion rider can easily detect the defects alleged by the complainant. It is true that the commissioner has not filed a detailed report, but defects are noted by the commissioner and the same has developed within a period of 1½  years. Opposite party failed to rectify the same. There is no iota of evidence on the part of the opposite parties to show that the vehicle is free from defect or defects are properly looked or rectified. But manufacturing defect as such is not proved by the complainant. Considering the defect mentioned in the commission report, we quantify an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

In view of the above discussions, we partly allow the complaint. Opposite parties held jointly and severally liable. Opposite parties directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.           

Pronounced in the open court on this the  22^nd   day of June 2013.

Seena H

President

Preetha G Nair

Member

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

 

 

 

Ext.A1 –  Copy of the bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A2 series  –  Copy of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the

Ext.A3 – Reply issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dtd.20/10/12

 

Nil

 

C1 – K.Gopinath

 

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings