DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2023.
Filed on: 18/12/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 499/2019
COMPLAINANT
Hebin Mathew, S/o. Johnson P.M., Panakkal House, Valluvally, Near Athani, Koonammavu P.O., 683518.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
- ROYAL ENFIELD, INDIA
(Rep. by Adv. Sharan Shahier, D-7, 2nd Floor, Door No. 41/4262, Metro Plaza, Market Road, Ernakulam – 18)
- St. Mary’s Motors, 41/481, Rajaji Junction, Chittoor Road.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint has been filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, Mr. Hebin Mathew, purchased a bike with the chassis number ME3U355C1JH369496 on November 8, 2018, from St Mary's Motors. However, since the day of delivery, the bike has been experiencing mechanical issues, including right-hand pulling of the handle, loose cone set, and rattling sounds of unknown origin. The bike was taken in for repair and cone set replacement 10 days after delivery and subsequently faced issues with the cone set at 12,000km, requiring further replacement, which was done at the complainant's expense.
The problems with the cone set persisted, and multiple replacements were done under warranty, including one at 15,000km and another after 600km. The bike was also stationary for repairs for 10 days at the request of a company official when it reached 18,200km. Despite these repairs, the bike, currently at 45,000km, still experiences the same issues, including handling problems during braking. The service center has not taken responsibility for resolving these issues, even though the bike is still under warranty. The complainant is concerned that these ongoing problems will become a burden once the warranty period expires. In the present case, the complainant requested the replacement of the bike and compensation in the amount of Rs. 50,000 from the opposite party.
2) Notice
The commission sent a notice to the opposite party, who subsequently appeared and submitted their version.
3) THE VERSION OF THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY
The complainant's case lacks merit and should be dismissed. The complainant has made false and misleading statements and presented incomplete facts. The 1st opposite party denies any wrongdoing and suggests that the complaint is motivated by mala fide intentions.
The 1st opposite party provides information about their company, highlighting their long history in motorcycle manufacturing, commitment to quality, and rigorous testing and development processes. They assert that they take customer feedback seriously and continuously strive to improve their products.
Regarding the specific issues raised by the complainant, the 1st opposite party states that they had already resolved the problem of right-hand pulling off the handle to the complainant's satisfaction. They dispute the complainant's claims of a loose cone set and rattling sound, arguing that these are normal wear and tear issues that should have been addressed through periodic maintenance.
The 1st opposite party challenges the complainant's assertion about the normal life of the cone set, stating that it depends on the rider's habits and maintenance. They deny causing any mental agony or deficiency in services and argue that the compensation requested is excessive and intended to harass them.
In summary, the 1st opposite party contends that the complaint should be dismissed as it lacks merit and is motivated by ulterior motives. They deny liability and assert that they have provided satisfactory products and services.
4) . Evidence
The Complainant has submitted photocopies of five documents along with the complaint but failed to provide a proof affidavit as evidence before the commission.
1. Copy of the bike bill payment
2. Copy of RC book
3. Copy of bill of consent replacement
4. Copy of detailed labor and service report from St. Marys motors.
5. Copy of the service book and statement made by St. marys motors.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case, the complainant has requested the replacement of the bike and compensation in the amount of Rs. 50,000 from the opposite party.
Sri.Sharan Shahier Counsel for the 1st Opposite Party submitted that the complaint lodged is meritless and should be dismissed. They assert that the Complainant has made false claims, presenting incomplete facts, and no cause of action is disclosed. They stress that their motorcycles are of high quality, globally recognized, and undergo rigorous testing. The warranty provided covers repairs or replacements of defective parts within specified terms and emphasizes that maintenance is the owner's responsibility. They address the Complainant's specific grievances, stating they rectified the mentioned handle issue, and deny the abnormal sound claim, attributing it to regular wear and tear, which is not covered under warranty. They deny any manufacturing defect, asserting the bike is in good condition, and dismiss all other claims, stating they are not liable for any compensation.
However, it is worth noting that despite being informed about the case and repeatedly requested to appear before the commission, the complainant has been continuously absent from 06.01.2022.
The complainant has neither attended any hearings nor submitted an affidavit of evidence as required by the commission. Despite numerous opportunities given to them, the complainant has failed to provide any proof or participate in any further commission proceedings. This consistent absence and lack of evidence on the complainant's side have persisted up to the present date.
In light of the complainant's ongoing absence and the absence of any evidence to support their case, the commission has no alternative but to dispose of the complaint based on the available evidence, which essentially means there is no substantial evidence to proceed with the complaint.
As a result, the commission will now proceed with the disposal of the complaint on its merits, likely leading to the dismissal of the complaint due to the complainant's lack of interest and participation in pursuing the matter.
Top of Form
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
“It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”
“In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”
The legal maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep.) is highly significant in consumer cases. It stresses the importance of being proactive and diligent in protecting one's rights and interests in legal matters. By actively safeguarding their rights, individuals are more likely to receive legal support compared to those who neglect their responsibilities. In consumer cases, this maxim emphasizes the need for consumers to be vigilant and attentive when facing potential legal issues, ensuring they protect their rights as buyers. However, it is essential to mention that in this specific case, the complainant did not submit an affidavit of evidence after filing the complaint.
The complainant bears the burden of proving their allegations of deficiencies in service and losses. The complainant's failure to attend hearings, submit evidence, or provide an affidavit of evidence undermines the credibility of their claims. As per established legal principles, mere allegations are insufficient to prove negligence or deficiency in service. In the absence of substantial evidence, the complainant's claims lack the necessary foundation to support their case.
Upon thorough examination of the evidence, legal arguments, and established legal principles, this Commission has arrived at the conclusion that the complainant's case is deficient in merit, credibility, and substantial evidence necessary to establish a valid cause of action. The complainant's inability to satisfy the burden of proof and their passive involvement in the proceedings further undermine their stance. Consequently, this Commission is compelled to dismiss the complainant's filed complaint. The aforementioned issues have been found to be unfavorable towards the complainant. The presented case by the complainant lacks merit. As a consequence, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of October, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
kp/
Despatch date:
By hand:
by post:
C.C. No. 499/2019
Order date: 27/10/2023
