IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 285/2017 (filed on 22-12-2017)
Petitioner : Arjun P.R.
S/o. Rajendran,
Pazhucherril House,
Thrikothamangalam P.O.
Changanacherry Taluk,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Rayin K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Manager,
Royal Enfield,
A unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.
Thiruvattiyur High Road,
Thiruvattiyur, Chennai,
Tamilnadu – 600019.
(Adv. Nithin M.K. and Adv. Nithin Sunny alex)
2) Manager,
Javeens Motoring Pvt. Ltd.
Manapurath Building,
Building No.288B,
Ward XIX, Kottayam Municipality,
Chalukunnu, Kottayam – 686001.
(Adv. N. Gopalakrishnan)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant purchased a Royal Enfiled Classic 350 Black Motor Cycle from the 2nd opposite party on 05-05-2016. The complainant availed a loan for the purchase of said bike. The total amount paid by the complainant was Rs.1,34,909/-. The vehicle had a warranty of 2 years. From the very 1st day itself the complainant noticed some abnormal knocks from the engine head. Same was reported to the 2nd opposite party at the 1st service itself, but they did nothing to rectify the defect. The complainant complained about same defect with the 2nd opposite party as well as during the post service appraisals made by the opposite parties. Later the defect increased, during every service the complainant made same complaint but was invein.
Within the warranty period on 08-12-17, the complainant gave the vehicle for service to the 2nd opposite party giving full description of the defect. As the warranty period was extended and the defect was well notified as early before the 1st service, the 2nd opposite party was duty bound to provide the benefit of warranty and replace all the defective parts. The 2nd opposite party also gave an impression regarding the same at the time of accepting the vehicle for service. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for return of the vehicle after service 2nd opposite party issued a bill for Rs.10,269/-. As the engine has severe defect, the engine was opened and crankpin was replaced. The defect was an inherent defect, that falls under manufacturing defect. The complainant has every authority to get the benefit of warranty as the replacement and overhauling was done due to inherent defect of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party has no authority to charge an exorbitant amount from the complainant as it is not at all their fault. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
The notice was served to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed separate version.
The 1st opposite party filed version contenting as follows.
The 1st opposite party is the oldest continuous production motorcycle manufacturer in the world. It is a unit of Eicher Motors Limited and has been a pioneer of powerful four stroke technology since 1955 in India. The 1st opposite party’s manufacturing operations go through a series of modernization and improvement effort, with a number of automated process. The 1st opposite party follows the best quality practices with respect to workmanship and materials used in its bike. The 1st 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 a warranty given. The warranty guidelines specifically state that the obligation of the 1st opposite party is only limited to repairing or replacing parts of the vehicle for free, only if the parts on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect.
On 31-05-2017, the complainant brought his bike to the authorized dealership of the 1st opposite party for routine maintenance and servicing. The complainant never raised any issues regarding the engine noise. The complainant had not done proper servicing of his vehicle. The complainant has not even completed the 1st free services on time. The complainant has not taken the 3rd free service as per the company guidelines and warranty policies. Since the complainant has not taken the 3rd free service therefore the warranty of the complainant becomes void and the same is out of warranty. It is further submitted by the 1st opposite party that warranty on the complainant bike was for 2 years or 20,000 kms whichever come early. Since the complainant has completed 28,000 km, the vehicle of the complainant is out of warranty. The complainant had taken the 4th service only after one year and 8 months and completion of 28,136 kms. This is against the terms and conditions of the warranty. Despite which the opposite party as a goodwill measure granted service benefit and charged the complainant only for parts changed. The complainant was made aware of the same before service and he had agreed to the same. The support and assistance has given to the complainant several times by the opposite parties. There is no manufacturing defect in the bike and the complainant vehicle is good and road worthy condition. The continuously increasing odometer of the bike shows that the bike is in a perfect running condition and the same is being regularly used by the complainant.
The complainant reports the engine noise during the 2nd service on 30-06-2016. The bike of the complainant was thoroughly inspected by the Senior technicians of the respondent. No such defects as alleged in the complaint were found. It was explained to the complainant by the respondents that the sound of the engine is the signature sound and there is no abnormal noise from the engine as reported by the complainant. The 1st opposite party had acted in best possible manner to provide proper timely service to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows.
That the vehicle of the complainant had a warranty of 2 years as well as engine had a warranty of 2 years. But the said warranty can be availed subject to the warranty terms and conditions. On 18-12-2017 after running of 28,136 km the same vehicle was brought to the 2nd opposite party with complaint from portion of engine and the defect was rectified vide a bill for an amount of Rs.10,269/- being the labour charges and the prices of the replaced parts were given to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party had never charged exorbitant amount from the complainant.
The said vehicle was got to the 2nd opposite party for the 1st free service on 31-05-2016 after running 575 kms. The 2nd free service was done by the 2nd opposite party on 03-06-2016 after running 2997 kms. The prescribed 3rd free service was to be done on running 6000 km or 6 months whichever come earlier. But the complainant had not brought the vehicle for the 3rd free service to the 2nd opposite party or any other approved service centre of the 1st opposite party. The Royal Enfield is maintaining a service history chart for each and every vehicle manufactured by them in dealer module system. In the service history, the complaint if any made by the owners, the way of its rectification, the nature of service whether free or paid, the kms showed in the odometer etc. and the bill if any definitely would be entered that service history chart if the vehicle is brought before any approved service centre by the Royal Enfield Company. From that itself it is very evident that the vehicle was brought to the 2nd opposite party for the 4th free service on 10000 kms ie. after 6 months and after running 9,239 km. The 3rd free service at 6000 km has not been availed by the complainant after taking 2nd free service at 2,997 kms. At that gencture the complainant has lost a benefit of warranty offered by the 1st opposite party. It is specifically mentioned in the warranty terms and conditions that the warranty shall be applicable only all the 4 free services and 3 paid services are availed in the respective period as per the owner’s manual from the authorized dealer or the service centre. The engine oil change is mandatory as provided in the owner’s service manual. After the 1st free service the complainant had not changed the engine oil and oil filter as provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle. The complainant had not done the periodic checkup of the oil change or other work as provided in the service manual. On no occasion while the vehicle was given to the service centre, complainant has not whispered about any abnormal knocks or sound from the engine head or from any other place of the vehicle.
The complaint was made on 08-12-17 while the vehicle was brought to the opposite party for service after running 28316 kms. The vehicle was released after the service and the complainant received the same with full satisfaction after paying the normal charges which are mentioned in detail in the bill dtd.08-12-17. There is no deficiency in service from the part of 2nd opposite party.
The complainant is examined as Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. One Mr. Sooraj S. Nair, who is the Area Sales Manager, Service of the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for and behalf of the 1st opposite party. No documentary evidence from the side of 1st opposite party. Joseph Pascal, who is the Service Manager of the 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit for and behalf of 2nd opposite party and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked.
On evaluation of complaint, version and documentary evidence, we would like to consider following points.
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
- If so, what are reliefs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased Royal Enfiled Classic 350 motor cycle from the 2nd opposite party on 05-05-2016. The complainant had paid Rs.1,34,909/- for the vehicle by availing a loan. Ext.A1 is a sales invoice dtd.06-05-2016 issued by the 2nd opposite party proves that
complainant had paid Rs.1,34,909/- to the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant from the 1st day itself he noticed some abnormal sounds from the engine head of the said vehicle though the same was reported to the 2nd opposite party, but they did nothing to rectify the vehicle. The Pw1 deposed that day by day the sound of the vehicle increased, and during every service of the bike he made some complaint to the opposite parties however all of became vein. On 08-12-17, the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for service after narrating all the description of the defects suffered by the motor cycle. According to the complainant he entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party within the warranty period and the opposite parties are bound to replace all the defective parts at free of cost as per the terms and conditions of the warranty offered by the 1st opposite party, who is the manufacturer of the vehicle. It is alleged by the Pw1 that against the warranty conditions the 2nd opposite party issued a bill for Rs.10,269/- as service charge of the vehicle. Ext.A2 is the invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party on 08-12-17 and it proves that the 2nd opposite party has received Rs.10,269/- from the complainant for the service done by them. It is further alleged by Pw1 that the defects suffered by the vehicle is a manufacturing defect and the opposite parties are bound to re-imburse the amount levied from him as per the directions of the warranty. On the other hand, opposite parties contented that the warranty offered by the 1st opposite party manufacturer is applicable only if all the 4 free services and periodical maintenance services are availed in the respective period or kms as per the schedule from the owner’s manual from the Royal Enfield dealers or authorized service centre. The specific case of the opposite party is that the complainant had failed to comply the mandatory provisions of availing 4 free services within the specified kms or period in the warranty terms and conditions. Ext.A3 is the owner’s manual of the said vehicle. On perusal of Ext.A3 the time stipulation for 1st free service is on 500 kms or 45+8 days which is earlier from the date of sale and for 2nd free service is on 3,000 km or 90+15 days whichever is earlier, 3rd free service is on 6,000 km or 195 days whichever is earlier and 4th free service is on 9,000 kms or 285 days whichever is earlier from the date of sale. Ext.B2 which is the print out of the service history chart of the vehicle of the complainant proves that the 4th service of the vehicle has been done by the complainant on 10-11-2016 at the mileage of 9289 kms as per the instructions enumerated in the owner’s manual the complainant is bound to avail the 4th free service at milage of 9,000 kms or 285 days whichever is earlier from the date of sale. Ext.B1 further proves that complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for the service on 18-12-2017 with an odometer reading of 28316 kms. The specific case of the complainant is that he had charged Rs.10,269/- in breach of the terms and conditions of the warranty. Warranty terms and conditions which is also stated in Ext.A2 owner’ manual. The clause 1 of the terms and conditions states that Royal Enfiled will replace or repair defective
parts at their dealership 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. Thus it is evident that the manufacturer offered the warranty upto the 20000 kms of mileage of vehicle or within 24 months from the date of purchase whichever become due earlier. Here Ext.A3 and B1 proves that the impugned. Ext.A2 bill was issued by the 2nd opposite party for the service done at the mileage of 28,000. 28,316 kms which was beyond the coverage of warranty period. Thus we are of the opinion that there is any act or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the opposite party in levying charges from the service and repair works done by them after the expiry of the warranty coverage of the vehicle. Though the complainant averred in the complaint and deposed before this Commission that the vehicle is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, he did not adduce any evidence to prove his contention. He did not care to obtain a report from Expert after duly inspecting of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. Without any evidence to show that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defect would cannot accept the contention of the complaintan. Moreover Pw1 who is the complainant deposed before this Commission that he was using the vehicle even than and the vehicle has been covered about 30,000 kms after the issuance of Ext.A2 bill. On a thoughtful evaluation of the above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant had failed to prove this case with cogent evidence and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th day of March, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 : Arjun P.R.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of sale invoice dtd.05-05-16 issued by 1st opposite party
A2 : Bill dtd.08-12-17 issued by 1st opposite party
A3 : Warranty booklet
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
B1 : Copy of warranty terms and conditions
B2 : Printout of service history chart
By Order
Senior Superintendent
