Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/388/2016

X.Arun Selvaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Royal Enfield, Unit of Eicher Motor Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

23 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                                                   Date of Complaint Filed : 10.11.2016

                                                                   Date of Reservation      : 23.03.2023

                                                                   Date of Order               : 10.04.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,           : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 388/2016

MONDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

X.Arunselvaraj,

No.5/9, Ambethkar Street,

Canal Puram,

Palavakkam,

Chennai – 600041.                                                                                                                  ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

1.Royal Enfield,

   Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.,

   Rep by its Authorised Signatory,

   Thiruvottiyur High Road,

   Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600019.

 

2.Royal Enfield Company Store,

   Rep by its Authorised Signatory,

   Devi Kripa, Old No,3, New No.9,

   Besant Avenue, Adyar,

   Chennai – 600 020.                                                                                                    ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. K.S Jeyaganeshan

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar.,B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to remove the defect in the vehicle once for all, with free of cost and shall make the vehicle in a perfect running condition and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony , physical inconvenience and hardship caused by the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties along with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and had booked a Two wheeler bearing model Classic 3650 Black on 22.10.2015, a proforma invoice was raised for a sum of Rs.1,43,569/- inclusive of basic price, Road Tax, Insurance charges and VAT 14.5% and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid at the booking and a receipt for the said sum was issued by the 2^nd Opposite party. Sales Invoice for a sum of Rs.1,29,278/- excluding Road Tax, Insurance Charges etc., was raised by the 2^nd Opposite Party and a sum of Rs.1,38,659/- was paid by him by way of cheque favouring Eicher Motors Ltd. He has taken delivery of the said vehicle on 06.01.2016 along with Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy etc.,. After 3 months from taking delivery of the said vehicle, while driving he noticed some excessive noise from the back wheel and informed the same to the 2^nd Opposite Party, who had advised him to take his vehicle to their authorized service centre at Kottivakkam, accordingly he took his vehicle to the said service centre and had complained that the back wheel trye was getting rubbed and grated continuously in the back wheel assembly when the vehicle was in use, of which the back wheel trye getting damaged very badly. It was informed that it was because of Chain Rubbing problem and advised to leave the vehicle for rectifying the defects and also informed that it was only a minor problem which could be removed in free services, as he was availing frees service as per the Warranty, but no job card was provided to him. The said vehicle was delivered to his informing that necessary service was made and the said issue would recur in future, but the same issue occurred which forced him to take the vehicle and handed over for removal of said defect to the Opposite Parties OMR service centre under job card No.RJC100153161706643. On assurance that comprehensive service was rendered and the problem was resolved fully, his vehicle was delivered and had charged a sum of Rs.874/- for their service. After the said repairs within few days to his utter shock the same problem occurred, subjected the vehicle for service twice in the month of August 2016 and after service SMS was sent to him on 17.08.2016 and 22.08.2016 to take back the vehicle which was made ready, but the Opposite Parties had not issued any rectification service report in writing.As the problem persisted in his vehicle he was constrained to send a Notice dated 19.09.2016 to the Opposite Parties, in spite of receipt of the same on 22.09.2016 no reply was made. Hence he had sent a final reminder to the Opposite Party on 04.10.2016 which was received on 08.10.2016, left with no response and no steps were taken to resolve his issues for the reasons known to them. Every time when his vehicle was left for rectifying the said defect it was simply assured by the Opposite Parties that defect was rectified but the defect in the vehicle remained unchallenged, for which he was made to run pillar to post. In spite of the same as he could bear the noise of the vehicle he had left the vehicle to the Opposite Parties service station on 13.10.2016 under Job card No.RJC100153161711114 and after service his vehicle was delivered with same assurance and a invoice for a sum of Rs.1942/- was raised along with a bill for Rs.200/- raised by one Deen Motor Cycle Wheel works, he had paid the said amount by cash and sought for the receipt which was refused and not provided to him. Even after the said service the defect was not rectified and the noise continued from the back wheel when it was in use. He approached the service station to remove the defects, but went in vain. As per Warranty terms and conditions it was stipulated that the Opposite Parties would replace or repair defective parts at their dealerships and authorized service centre, free of charge within a period of 24 months or 20,000 kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier, having received the service charges form him the defect was not rectified by the Opposite Parties though under the warranty period, the Opposite Parties cannot escape from their liabilities even towards the manufacturing defects foundin the vehicle. His vehicle was subjected to repeated repairs without any result and till the date of filing he was driving the said vehicle with persisting problem. As the problem persisting in his vehicle could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties clearly shows some serious problem exist, if not it would a manufacturing defect per se. The acts and conduct of the Opposite Parties would clearly establish their sheer negligence and total disregard to their responsibility and sense of duty, which needs no proof. He had underwent mental agony, physical pain and untold sufferings, from the date of defect existed within the warranty period, having failed to rectify the same in spite of their liability to do free of cost and having failed to give effective reply for the letters sent by him. The said act of the Opposite Parties was not only a wrong but also deficiency of service and they were liable to compensate him. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-

The facts about the booking of the vehicle made by the Complainant, invoice raised by them, amounts received by them and delivery of vehicle made on 06.01.2016 to the Complainant, were admitted by them. They deny on the allegations made with regard to complaint made to their authorized service centre on 22.01.2016 about excess noise from the back wheel, as the vehicle was left on 22.01.2016 for 1^st service in their OMR showroom, then the odometer reading was 658 kms and apart from regular check up it was complained by the Complainant about front disc noise check and ignition set loose, all the defects were rectified and the Complainant taken delivery of his vehicle giving satisfaction note. Thereafter the vehicle was left for service on 09.03.2016 when no specific complaint was made by the Complainant and hence the Complainant has to prove the allegations made with regard to the complaints made by him and it is common in the entire automobile industry that no job card will be issued to the customer and the job card will be retained by the workshop and the customer while taking delivery of the vehicle will sign the same after driving the vehicle, only the final bill will be issued on the parts which are changed that are chargeable. The allegations made by the Complainant with regard to the information given to him that the vehicle would not face any problem in the future, is denied, as they had not informed so, since the vehicle will have its own wear and tear and in a condition depending upon the individual customers and also solely depends upon the maintenance of the vehicle. Thevehicle was left in their OMR showroomon 25.07.2016 for service with a sppedometer reading at 9060 kms and the complaint of the Complainants were Rear chain rubbing with tyre, General service, Engine Oil check up and top up, Disc hose properly hose (rubbing with cover tube), Rear mudguard rubbing with tyre, Horn not working properly, Fork Oil change, for which they have taken action of Brake shoe kit with spring, Clutch cable, Brake pad set front calliper, Chain Lube – 500 ml, Chain cleanser – 500ml and wheel bearing 6203 (17*40*12) and only the chargeable part were charged and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle in good condition on due endorsement made by him. Further the vehicle was left for service on 16.08.2016 with a sppedometer reading at 9937 kms with a complaint of Chain was rubbing with tyre, which was rectified and handed over in good condition. Thereafter on 22.08.2016 with speedometer reading at 10120 kms the vehicle was left with complaints of horn not working properly in idle condition and vehicle dragging at 60 -70 kms speed and mudguard was rubbing with tyre, all the defects were rectified and handed over the vehicle to the Complainant and the allegations made in this regard were denied. Thereafter the vehicle was left for service and the odometer reading was 12482 kms with complaints of General service, engine oil change, rear brake adjust, chain rubbing with tyre, rear tyre rubbing with mudguard check, and they have done the work as follows, 15W50API SL Engine Oil – 250 its, Element – Oil filter, Air Filter, Chain Lube – 500 ml, Chain cleanser – 500 ml and after service the vehicle was delivered in a good condition and the same was acknowledged by the Complainant. The other allegations made by the Complainant were denied and it is for the Complainant to prove the allegations made with regard to the defects were not rectified by them, as the vehicle may have some minor repairs sometime depending on its maintenance, and the terms and conditions are equally applicable for all the vehicles that are manufactured which are put to stringent tests before the same are rolled out by them. The Complainant’s vehicle was serviced as per the warranty norms and there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the Complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the Complaint.

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10   The Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties documents was marked as Ex.B-1 alone.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

It is a undisputed fact that the Complainant had booked a Two wheeler on 22.10.2015 bearing model Classic 3650 Black  from the 2^nd Opposite Party and it is also not in dispute that the payment as directed by the 2^nd Opposite Party was paid by the Complainant. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 06.01.2016 along with Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy.

The disputed facts of the Complainant are that after 3 months from taking delivery of the said vehicle, while driving he noticed some excessive noise from the back wheel and informed the same to the 2^nd Opposite Party and as per the advise he took the vehicle and complained about the back wheel trye was getting rubbed and grated continuously in the back wheel assembly when the vehicle was in use, of which the back wheel trye getting damaged very badly to the authorized service centre at Kottivakkam. It was because of Chain Rubbing problem and asked to leave the vehicle, as it was only a minor problem which could be removed in free services, as he was availing frees service as per the Warranty, but no job card was provided to him. The said vehicle was delivered on assurance that necessary service was made and the said issue would recur in future, but the same issue occurred which forced him to take the vehicle and handed over for removal of said defect to the Opposite Parties OMR service centre under job card No.RJC100153161706643. On assurance that comprehensive service was rendered and the problem was resolved fully, his vehicle was delivered and had charged a sum of Rs.874/- for their service. After the said repairs within few days to his utter shock the same problem occurred, subjected the vehicle for service twice in the month of August 2016 and after service SMS was sent to him on 17.08.2016 and 22.08.2016 to take back the vehicle which was made ready, but the Opposite Parties had not issued any rectification service report in writing. As the problem persisted in his vehicle he was constrained to send a Notice dated 19.09.2016 to the Opposite Parties, in spite of receipt of the same on 22.09.2016 no reply was made. Hence he had sent a final reminder to the Opposite Party on 04.10.2016 which was received on 08.10.2016, left with no response and no steps were taken to resolve his issues for the reasons known to them. Every time when his vehicle was left for rectifying the said defect, only assurances were made but not rectified the defect in the vehicle which remained unchallenged and he was made to run pillar to post. In spite of the same as he could bear the noise of the vehicle he had left the vehicle to the Opposite Parties service station on 13.10.2016 under Job card No.RJC100153161711114 and after service his vehicle was delivered with same assurance and an invoice for a sum of Rs.1942/- was raised along with a bill for Rs.200/- raised by one Deen Motor Cycle Wheel works, he had paid the said amount by cash and sought for the receipt which was refused and not provided to him. Even after the said service the defect was not rectified and the noise continued from the back wheel when it was in use. He approached the service station to remove the defects, but went in vain. As per Warranty terms and conditions it was stipulated that the Opposite Parties would replace or repair defective parts at their dealerships and authorized service centre, free of charge within a period of 24 months or 20,000 kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier, having received the service charges form him the defect was not rectified by the Opposite Parties though under the warranty period, the Opposite Parties cannot escape from their liabilities even towards the manufacturing defects found in the vehicle. His vehicle was subjected to repeated repairs without any result and till the date of filing he was driving the said vehicle with persisting problem. As the problem persisting in his vehicle could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties clearly shows some serious problem exist, if not it would a manufacturing defect per se. Hence the acts and conduct of the Opposite Parties would clearly establish their sheer negligence and total disregard to their responsibility and sense of duty, which needs no proof and he had underwent mental agony, physical pain and untold sufferings, from the date of defect existed within the warranty period, having failed to rectify the same in spite of their liability to do free of cost and having failed to give effective reply for the letters sent by him. The said act of the Opposite Parties was not only a wrong but also deficiency of service and they were liable to compensate him.

The contentions of the Opposite Party are that the complaint was made to their authorized service centre on 22.01.2016 for 1^st service in their OMR showroom, then the odometer reading was 658 kms and apart from regular check up, about front disc noise check and ignition set loose, all the defects were rectified and the Complainant taken delivery of his vehicle giving satisfaction note. Thereafter the vehicle was left for service on 09.03.2016 when no specific complaint was made about the vehicle by the Complainant and hence the Complainant had to prove the allegations made with regard to the complaints made by him and it was common in the entire automobile industry that no job card will be issued to the customer and the job card will be retained by the workshop and the customer while taking delivery of the vehicle will sign the same after driving the vehicle, only the final bill will be issued on the parts which are changed that are chargeable. They had not assured or informed that the vehicle would not face any problem in the future, asany vehicle will have its own wear and tear and in a condition depending upon the individual customers and also solely depends upon the maintenance of the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle was left in their OMR showroom on 25.07.2016 for service with a speedometer reading at 9060 kms and the complaint of the Complainants were Rear chain rubbing with tyre, General service, Engine Oil check up and top up, Disc hose properly hose (rubbing with cover tube), Rear mudguard rubbing with tyre, Horn not working properly, Fork Oil change, for which they have taken necessary action with regard to the said complaints made and only the chargeable part were charged and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle in good condition on due endorsement made by him. Subsequently the vehicle was left for service on 16.08.2016 with a speedometer reading at 9937 kms with a complaint of Chain was rubbing with tyre, which was rectified and handed over in good condition. Thereafter on 22.08.2016 with speedometer reading at 10120 kms the vehicle was left with complaints of horn not working properly in idle condition and vehicle dragging at 60 -70 kms speed and mudguard was rubbing with tyre, all the defects were rectified and handed over the vehicle to the Complainant. Subsequently, the vehicle was left for service and the odometer reading was 12482 kms with complaints of General service, engine oil change, rear brake adjust, chain rubbing with tyre, rear tyre rubbing with mudguard check, and the same was attended and after service the vehicle was delivered in a good condition and the same was acknowledged by the Complainant. Further it is for the Complainant to prove the allegations made with regard to the defects were not rectified by them, as the vehicle may have some minor repairs sometime depending on its maintenance, and the terms and conditions are equally applicable for all the vehicles that are manufactured which are put to stringent tests before the same are rolled out by them. The said vehicle of the Complainant was serviced as per the warranty norms and there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the Complainant. Further when the Complainant had claimed that the defects which could not be rectified would be a manufacturing defect and had also filed a CMP for expert opinion and in spite of the said CMP being allowed, the Complainant had not taken steps thereafter, hence adverse inference should be drawn, as it is essential to prove by an expert opinion, if at all any manufacturing defect was alleged.

On discussion made above and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that except Ex.A-6 Retail Cash Invoice dated 25.07.2016 for the amount of Rs.874/- paid by the Complainant, the Complainant had failed to produce the payments bills alleged to have been collected by the Opposite Parties during the Warranty period, before this Commission. Though it was alleged that the defects that has been pointed out to the Opposite Parties were not rectified when the vehicle was left on 22.01.2016  and thereafter on regular intervals on 25.07.2016, 16.08.2016, 22.08.2016 & 13.10.2016 and further alleged that the Job cards were not provided by the Opposite Parties, from Ex.B-1 Job cards produced by the Opposite Parties elucidate that the defects as complained by the Complainant were found to be rectified and it is to be noted that as pointed out by the Opposite parties that necessary entries about the complaints made in respect of the subject vehicle has been made and thereafter after repairs the subject vehicle has been taken delivery by the Complainant. It is also to be noted that the speedometer reading of the subject vehicle was 12482 kms on 13.10.2016 and whenever the subject vehicle was left for service it has run reasonable kilometers, hence if at all the subject vehicle would suffer from manufacturing defects it would not have run upto 15219 kms when the Vehicle was again left for service with the Opposite parties on 24.12.2016 as found in Ex.B-1, further in spite of Complainant having filed a CMP for expert opinion to establish manufacturing defects in the subject vehicle and obtained an order from this Commission, had failed to proceed further, would clearly shows that the subject vehicle did not suffer from manufacturing defects. It is to be noted that the Complainant had left his vehicle for repairs as alleged on regular intervals, and also the Kilometers it had run, if at all the defects were not rectified then and there by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant would not have left the subject vehicle in the same service center of the Opposite parties. Hence it is clear that the Complainant had failed to prove the allegations levelled against the Opposite Parties in rectifying the defects pointed out by the Complainant as well as any particular defects that has not been rectified by the Opposite Parties by producing any authenticated proof before this Commission. Therefore this Commission is the considered view that no deficiency of service could be attributed against the Opposite Parties. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 10^th of April 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	22.10.2015	Order booking form
Ex.A2	22.10.2015	Proforma invoice
Ex.A3	22.10.2015	Booking receipt
Ex.A4	21.12.2015	Copy of cheque
Ex.A5	25.12.2015	Vehicle sale invoice with warranty, RC & Insurance Policy etc.
Ex.A6	25.07.2016	Retail cash invoice
Ex.A7	17.08.2015	SMS messages
Ex.A8	19.09.2016	Notice with Acknowledgement
Ex.A9	04.10.2016	Final Reminder with Acknowledgement
Ex.A10	13.10.2016	Retail cash invoice with Bill of DEEN

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

Ex.B1

Series of Job card copy

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT