Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/318/2013

N.Mugilan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Enfield, A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Ashok Menon

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  03.08.2013

                                                                        Date of Order :  30.09.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 318/2013

FRIDAY THIS  30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER  2016

 

N. Mugilan,

S/o. G. Neethi Suriya Mannan,

Door No.25/147, I Street,

K.V.N. Puram,

Kilpauk Garden,

Chennai 600 010.                                              .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Manager,

M/s. Royal Enfield,

A Unit of Eicher Motors Limited,

Thiruvottiyur High Road,

Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai 600 019.

 

2. Mr. Prabhu Selvaraj,

Proprietor,

Sri Velavan Motors,

No.45, Arcot Road,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai 600 092.                                             ..Opposite parties 

 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. Ashok Menon    

For the opposite party-1             :   M/s. K.S.Jeyaganeshan

For the opposite party-2             :   M/s. D.Baskar.

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to replace the new bike instead of the old one and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II     

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

            The  complainant submit that he had purchased Royal Enfield Classic 350 CC Motor Cycle and took delivery on 23^rd  November 2012.  He complained that when he had a long drive from Anna Nagar to OMR Road he found the acid from the bike battery got expelled and caused damage to the bike battery terminal, as a result it vehicle got break down in the night without mentioning the date of occurrence.   The complainant convey the next day he informed to the 2^nd opposite party about the previous days problem  and minor service was carried with the opposite party-2.  It is reported by the complainant during 2^nd service he found a leak in the engine case oil got expelled  and over flowed and it was reported to the opposite party and the opposite party attended the service by applying Silicone gel  around the engine case, without arresting the oil leak as a temporary solution for the leakage.  The complainant had left the vehicle with the opposite party for 3^rd service when he drove 6000 k.m. after the expiry of service period.   The allegation of the complainant the opposite party had not noted the Engine number,  Chassis number,  Battery number, fuel quantity while the bike comes for service point and no record had been created by the service department  when the vehicle came for service.   He left the vehicle for 3^rd service on 2^nd September  2013 and charged Rs.1,470/- and while returning from service he found the batteries case lock was broken which resulted in expelled out of it and spoiled his vehicle’s engine case  and reported the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party had changed many original parts.  The complainant reported the service centre official were not responding properly and he was not able to use the vehicle from 6^th Sep 2013 and the bike stopped completely working.    As such, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   As such the complainant sought for to replacement the new bike instead of old one and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

Written version of 1^st opposite party is  in briefly as follows:-

2.     The 1^st opposite party deny all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein.     The 1^st opposite party submit that the complainant is to prove the averments in the paragraphs alleged because this opposite party is not directly involved and the same is not within the knowledge of the opposite party as the same is between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Written version of 2^nd opposite party is  in briefly as follows:-

3.     The 2^nd opposite party deny all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The complainant had done the 1^st service on 5.1.2013 at 516 kms and there is a separate breakdown team to attend the customer vehicle and if any breakdown happens the customer can contact this team and the same would be dealt by them.   The terminal would get loosened only by rash driving and also if the condition of the road is poor and not because of the expulsion of acid from battery.    The vehicle was brought to the opposite party’s workshop on 21.3.2013.  The odometer of the vehicle was recorded as 1500 kms.   The fault recorded was wiring fault.  On inspection the mechanics it was found that the  battery side wiring kit was in messed condition which was disturbed by the local mechanic.   The same was not covered under warranty and the same was furnished in the owners manual.     After getting a special approval from the 1^st opposite party changed / replaced the wiring kit to the customer as a goodwill gesture.   The vehicle was received for 2^nd service and when the vehicle was not used under normal usages as specified in the owner’s manual book.  The driving habits of the complainant also reflects in the vehicle and the vehicle will have the normal wear and tear for which the opposite party cannot be held responsible.    The vehicle is to be brought for service  for every 3000 kms or three months but the complainant’s vehicle was brought after a period of six months for third service but the vehicle was brought for service  on 22.5.2013 which was six months from the date of sale of the vehicle.    It is clear that the complainant was not regular for service and hence the complainant cannot be held liable for the acts which are because of the complainant.  The opposite party state that if the lock is loosened then it would raise a noise while riding.   While taking delivery of the vehicle,  the complainant’s father had inspected the vehicle thoroughly and had took the vehicle.   Hence the complainant cannot now come and say new set of facts which are baseless.    As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.   Complainant had filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked on the side of the  opposite parties. 

  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

6.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked on the side of  opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.

7.     The complainant contended that he had purchased Royal Enfield Classic 350 CC Motor Cycle and took delivery on 23^rd  November 2012.  He complained that when he had a long drive from Anna Nagar to OMR Road he found the acid from the bike battery got expelled and caused damage to the bike battery terminal,  as a result it vehicle got break down in the night without mentioning the date of occurrence.   The complainant convey the next day he informed to the 2^nd opposite party about the previous days problem  and minor services were carried out with the opposite party-2.  It is reported by the complainant during 2^nd service, he found a leak in the engine case, oil got expelled  and over flowed and it was reported to the opposite party and the opposite party attended the service by applying Silicon gel  around the engine case, without arresting the oil leak as a temporary solution for the leakage.    The complainant is left  the vehicle with the opposite party for 3^rd service when he drove 6000 k.m. after the expiry of service period.

8.     The complainant’s allegation was the opposite party had not noted the Engine number,  Chassis number,  Battery number, fuel quantity while the bike comes for service point and no record has been created by the service  department when the vehicle came for service.   He left the vehicle for 3^rd service on 2^nd September 2013 and charged Rs.1,470/- and while returning from service he found the batteries case lock was broken which resulted in expulsion of acid and spoiled vehicle engine case and reported the service centre of the opposite party-2 had changed many original parts.  The complainant reported the service centre official were not responding properly and he was not able to use the vehicle from 6^th Sep 2013 and the bike stop completely working.  As a result of spillage of acid from the battery and damages found in the engine case.   The complainant filed this complaint it is a deficiency on the service  of opposite party and he informed the opposite parties to give the details of parts replaced under warranty and parts replaced under non-warranty since there is no response from opposite party-2.  Hence he filed the complaint to this forum seeking replacement of vehicle with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and seeking the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,962/- with interest where he had spend for all free services.

9.     The opposite parties conveyed that the complainant brought the vehicle for 1^st service on 5.1.2013 at 516 kms. and free of service was done by them and loosing of terminal is because of rash driving and poor condition of road where the acid would have expelled  from the battery the complainant brought the vehicle for 2^nd service on 21.3.2013 and at the running  kms of 1500 kms and fault recorded was wring fault  and found the wiring kit was in a mess because the complainant given the vehicle from Local mechanic where it was disturbed which will not be covered under the warranty supplied to the complainant.   In spite of this the 2^nd opposite party got the approval from the opposite party-1 and replaced the wiring kit.  The said vehicle was brought for service on 5.4.2013 opposite party, the kilometer reading was noted as 2889 and found normal usage.   Again the vehicle was brought to the service center on 22.5.2013 after six months from the date of sale and it was noticed the terminal  of the battery got fungus and the entire parts of the wearing kit got messed up.   The allegations and the averments made by the complainant is not accepted by the opposite party-2 and in order to prove the manufacturing defect or the deficiency in service the complainant has to substantiate with the expert opinion  which had not been compiled with hence the opposite party pleads to dismiss the case.

10.    Pursuant on the complaint, written version, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 the disputes within mentioned complaint, we found  while filing  the complainant itself the complainant was not sure about the date where he met with the stoppage of vehicle while he was using vehicle on the OMR road and the complainant was not sure about when he had left the vehicle for service for 1^st and 2^nd service and after completion of 6000 kms it was stated that the he left the vehicle on 3^rd September 2013  for service and complaining the opposite party-2 had charged Rs.1,470/-.

11.    On going through the documents filed by the opposite parties from Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 it is found that in the work order the 1st service was carried out on 5.1.2013  and the job sheet was made on 7.1.2013 by changing oil filter, Motul 15W50 which has to be normally borne by the vehicle owner.  The 2^nd service was done on 21.1.2013 attended on 21.1.2013 and delivered the vehicle on 31.1.2013 by changing wiring harms and Trafficator front RH Classic 350 500 CC covered under warranty.    The opposite party again serviced the vehicle on 5.4.2013 by changing the Chain Lubrication and slackness adjusting by charging Rs.157/-.  Again on 2.9.2013 at 6360 kms opposite party-2 at done the service without charging any amount.    Again under warranty the opposite party had done the service on 15.7.2013 which was delivered on the same day.  The allegations made by the complainant that the opposite parties had not done the service properly could not be accepted by this forum.   The defects found in the vehicle was due to improper maintenance of the vehicle owner and road condition climate condition, and application of breaks and over speeding may result where and care it is the duty of the vehicle owner to maintain the vehicle in a proper condition and whatever the directives given in the user manual are to be adhered to.   The warranty card submitted for the battery clearly describes  “Check once a month keep battery at all times apply petroleum gel on terminals, advice to check once in two months, keeping the battery idle and regular maintenance recharging not carried out the warranty will be null and void while charging the battery for continuously 12 hours take a specific every hours the warranty for battery is against all defects in workman ship the liability of the warranty is limited to making good of defect arising  use of faulty workmen ship during manufacture.  The warranty period for motor cycle are 12 months or 10000 kms whichever is earlier this warranty does not cover damage to the battery case by fault in correct charging and improper handing of battery by un-authorized or auto electrician irregular servicing failure to negligence maintenance willful adduce description by fire pollution theft or recharging.   The break of these condition  do not come under the purview of warranty.  “

12.    It is found the complainant allegations are frivolous and hasty and while delivering the vehicle the dealer had provided user manual warranty card and service coupon which were to be strictly kept and followed the instruction given in this documents.   But the complainant without going through the warranty that has been given and without adhering the instruction given in the user manual could not be accepted.   Moreover the complainant seeking replacement of vehicle will not be accepted because he had not substantiated his allegations of deficiency of service with an expert opinion furnishing the details of defects that he had purchased the vehicle from the opposite part-2 and he has not proved any manufacturing defect either for the vehicle or for the battery that is fitted in the vehicle to substantiate his claim.

13.    Therefore as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the allegation of deficiency of service attributed by the complainant against the opposite parties in the complaint are not proved, as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for, in the complaint against the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances, both the parties are to bear their own costs.  Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

        In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

    Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  30^th   day  of  September  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  3.6.2012   -  Copy of order booking from Sri Velavan Motors.

Ex.A2-  22.11.2012 – Copy of Tax Invoice from Sri Velavan Motors.

Ex.A3- 23.11.2012 – Copy of Sales Order from Sri Velavan Motors.

Ex.A4- 17.11.2012         -  Copy of Customer receipt.

Ex.A5- 7.1.2013    -  Copy of Service Invoice.

Ex.A6- 4.6.2013    -  Copy of Service Invoice.

Ex.A7- 4.9.2013    -  Copy of Service Invoice.

Ex.A8- 10.9.2013  -  Copy of letter from Prabhu Selvaraj with acknowledgement.

Ex.A9- 7.9.2013    -  Copy of email of Royal Enfield.

Ex.A10-       -       -  Copy of Warranty card for battery.

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- 

 

Ex.B1- 5.1.2013    - Copy of Work order

Ex.B2- 21.1.12013         - Copy of Work Order.

Ex.B3- 5.4.2013    - Copy of Work Order.

Ex.B4- 2.9.2013    - Copy of Work Order.

Ex.B5- 9.4.2013    - Copy of Work Order.

Ex.B6- 15.7.2013  - Copy of work order.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.