IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 24th day of August, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal. V.S, President
Smt. Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 187/2020 (Filed on 16/11/2020)
Complainant : Sethu Muhammad M.S.
S/o. Shahul Hameed,
Mangalath House,
Chirakkadavu P.O.
Chirakkadavu, Kottayam
Pin – 686520
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) General Manager,
Royal Enfield India (P) Ltd.
Head Office, Chennai,
Tamilnadu,
Rep. by General Manager,
Royal Enfield India (P) Ltd.
624, Thiruvottiyoor - 600019
(2) The Genernal Manager,
Royal Enfield India (P) Ltd.
Head Office, Chennai – 600019
(For Op 1 and 2, Adv. Nithin M.K. and
Adv. Sharan Shahier)
(3) The Zonal Manger,
Royal Enfield India (P) Ltd.
Head Office, Cochi – 686021
(4) General manager,
Veliyath Motors,
457/ABC Ground Floor,
Kalathupullattu Buildings,
Mutholi, Puliyathoor,
Pala, Kottayam – 686573
Rep. by Manager (G.M.)
(5) General manger,
Head Office,
Veliyath Motors,
Thodupuzha,
Rep. by Manager (GM)
P R Arcade, 4- lane Bypass Road,
Thodupuzha - 685584
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal. V.S, President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
On 18/7/ 2020 the complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Bullet 350 EFI Onyx black from the 4th opposite party who is the sales and service agent of the first and second opposite parties by paying an amount of 1,25,133/. The first opposite party is the manufacture of the said motorcycle. The said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant as KL 34G 3532. From the first usage
of the motor cycle, it was having dragging towards right side and the same was reported to the opposite parties which was rectified by the fifth opposite party after multiple visits to the 4th and 5th opposite parties. Apart from that the said vehicle is having knocking noise from the engine, and the engine sensor warning light which glows only on the event of malfunction in the engine is frequently glowing and there exists a missing issue during the running of the motorcycle. All these complaints were reported to the opposite parties and the same was rectified by the opposite parties in three occasions. But the complaint is persisting.
It is further alleged in the complaint that while riding the vehicle it started to stop frequently due to the insufficient pumping of fuel from fuel tank to the engine. When this was informed to the opposite parties, they told that could be rectified automatically after the continuous usage of the vehicle. For inspecting and rectifying these complaints the vehicle was entrusted to the 4th and 5th opposite parties in multiple times about 30 days in 3 months. But the opposite parties were not able to rectify these complaints. The motorcycle is covered with the warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase or 30000 km whichever is earlier. The complainant also got an extended warranty of 50000 kms or 5 years from the date of purchase of the motor cycle. It is alleged in the complaints that the said motorcycle has inherent manufacturing defects and they cannot be rectified. According to the complainant the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by selling motorcycle having manufacturing defect to the complainant and thereby caused heavy loss and hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the motorcycle with a brand-new defect free one or to refund the price of the motorcycle along with other expenses and to pay Rs.50,000/- the amount which is paid by the complainant to rectify the defects of the vehicle. It is further prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.
After the admission of the complaint notices where duly served to the opposite parties. Despite the receipt of notice from this Commission opposite parties 3 to 5 did not care to appear before this Commission or to file version. Hence opposite parties 3 to 5 were declared as ex party.
Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed joint version contending as follows:
The first opposite party is the oldest motorcycle manufacturer in the world. It is a unit of Echier Motors Limited which has been a pioneer of powerful four stroke engine Technology since 1955 in India. The first opposite party manufacturers quality bikes that are well known worldwide for their reliability and toughness. First opposite party warrants its bikes to be free from all manufacturing and material defect under normal use, subject to certain terms and conditions. The customer at the time of booking and delivery is provided with the warranty booklet. Warranty guidelines state that warranty does not apply to electrical equipment which are subjected to normal wear and tear. These warranty guidelines are also mentioned in the vehicles which is provided to the customer at the time of Delivery of the vehicle. Moreover, during the warranty period, only defective parts of the vehicle can be repaired or replaced free of cost
and a new vehicle is not issued to the customer. The warranty guidelines specifically state that the obligation of first respondent is only limited to repairing/ replacing parts of the vehicle for free, only if the part(s) on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect. With respect to the defect alleged concerning the right hand pulling, the dealer checked the same as per SOP and found it to be normal. It was explained to the complainant but he was not convinced. The complaint of engine knocking noise was also checked as per SOP and found the reading is below 74dB which is normal as per RE standards and is the characteristics of the engine. The same was also communicated to the complainant along with the fact that it will not be affecting the performance of the vehicle in any manner. Hence the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. The allegation that the engine sensor warning indication that turn on only in the event of any malfunction in the engine, to have been glowing throughout the duration of usage of the vehicle without any reason is false. The averment regarding the defect reported on 25/8/2020 when the customer insisted on a right hand pulling and engine knocking noise, it was examined by the dealer wherein the front wheel spoke was found loose and the same was resolved. For engine knocking noise, engine timing, tappet sponginess and oil pump function was inspected. A test drive of 50 km was also done and no knocking noise was found and everything seemed to be normal. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the first and second opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibits A1 to A11 were marked. Saji. S. who is the Area Manager (service) of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit in Lieu of chief examination for and on behalf of the First opposite party. No documentary evidence on the part of the fast and second opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint, version, and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- weather there is any deficiency in service or Unfair trade practice only part of the opposite parties
- if so, what are the reliefs?
Point number 1 and 2 together.
On 18/7/2020 the complainant purchased a new Royal Enfield Bullet 350 EFI Onyx black from the fourth opposite party which is manufactured by the first opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.1,25,133/- to the fourth opposite party being the price of the motorbike vide exhibit A1. The specific case of the complainant is that from the first usage itself the vehicle having dragging towards right side and having knocking noise from the engine, engine sensor warning indication that turn on only in the event of any malfunction in the engine, to have been glowing throughout the duration of the usage of vehicle. Though the vehicle was entrusted to the 4th and 5th opposite parties multiple times for 30 days in 3 months to rectify the defects, they failed to rectify these defects because of the same where due to inherent manufacturing defects.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties contending that the vehicle has no manufacturing defect at all. According to the first and second opposite parties, on 25/8/2020 inspected the vehicle and front wheel spoke was found lose and the same was resolved. To rectify the engine knocking noise they inspected the engine timing, tappet sponginess and the oil pump function and found that no abnormal noise was heard.
To prove his case the complainant applied to appoint an expert commission to get the vehicle inspect. Accordingly, K Suresh Babu who is the motor vehicle inspector is appointed as an expert Commissioner in this case. Expert Commissioner filed C1 report. The Expert Commissioner in C1 report reported that there is certain knocking sound generated from the engine area due to uneven stroke of piston and its movement in the cylinder and due to irregular combustion of fuel mixture i.e., petrol: air. He further reported that this irregularity could be rectified through precise maintenance with the approved service person and other mechanical conditions of the vehicle are satisfactory while on test drive. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Royal Enfield motorcycle which was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant is having some defects. Though the complainant alleged manufacturing defects the expert Commissioner did not find any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. According to the expert commissioner the defect of the vehicle can be rectified by an authorised service person.
Admittedly as per the warranty terms and conditions the first opposite party will replace or repair defective parts at their dealerships and authorised service Centre, free of charge with in a period of 3 years or 30000 km from the date of sale whichever is earlier. It is further stated in exhibit A11 which is the warranty terms and conditions that during the warranty period RE’s obligations shall be limited to repairing or replacing parts of the vehicle for free only if the parts on
examination is Deemed to have manufacturing defect. The opposite parties have no case that the defect of the vehicle occurred after the warranty coverage is over. Thus, it is the bounden duty of the first, second and third opposite parties to rectify the defect of Vehicle under the warranty coverage offered by them at the time of the sale of the vehicle to the complainant.
On the evaluation of the evidence on record, we are the opinion that the opposite parties 1 to 3 committed deficiency in service by not rectifying the defects of the vehicle under the warranty which was offered by them to the complainant. A person who bought a new motor cycle would not expect that he would run to the service centre on several times with the short span from the purchase of the vehicle to repair the defect of the vehicle. That would cause much mental agony and hardship to the purchaser of a new vehicle. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order:
(1) We hereby direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to repair the vehicle of the complainant in a road worthy condition at free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(2) We hereby direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to3.
(3) The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to comply this order within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 9% per annum from 16-11-2020 i.e., the date on which this complaint is filed till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24th day of August, 2023
Sri. Manulal. V.S, President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of invoice dtd.17/07/2020
A2 – Copy of insurance policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd
A3 – Copy of tax receipt for Rs.15,016/- by Motor Vehicle Department.
A4 – Copy of temporary certificate of registration (KL2020-T/R-0365AF)
A5-Copy of registration certificate (KL-34G3532)
A6- Copy of e-mail communication (subject to objection)
A7- Copy of job card acknowledgement
A8-Service pre-invoice issued by opposite party (job card dtd.25/09/21)
A9-Service pre-invoice issued by opposite party (job card dtd.01/02/22)
A10- CD
A11 – Warranty terms and conditions
Commission Report
C1 – Inspection report submitted by K. Suresh Babu, Motor Vehicle Inspector
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
