DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday the 27th day of July 2023
C.C.335/2017
Complainant
Jithin Kumar,
Aranolochalil,
Kunnamngalam,
Kozhikode – 673 571.
Opposite Parties
1. Royal Enfield,
Thiruvottiyur High Road,
Thiruvottiyur, Chennai,
Thamil Nadu- 600 019.
2. Blue Mountain Agencies,
16/620 – A, Zayaan Complex,
Francis Road,
Kozhikode – 673 001.
3. Luha Auto, 24/1128/B,
Pagaron Point, Mini Bypass Road,
Mankavu, Kozhikode – 673 007.
ORDER
By.Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Electra 350 model motor cycle from the second opposite party in May 2014 paying Rs.1,23,000/-. But the motor cycle started giving problems from the second service onwards. The problems were engine sprang clutch issue, engine overheating, uncomfortable riding, rusting, silencer complaint, heavy vibration, electrical issues, battery and horn damage issues and low quality accessories. All the complaints were reported through Royal Enfield website and emails and they tried to fix the problems many times, but in vain. At last, they tried to fix the problem from the third opposite party and made some work from outside and because of the expiry of the warranty period, he had to make payment also. But within 2 months, the same issues repeated. In the last week, the vehicle broke down in the road. The vehicle was taken to the service centre and after inspection, it was informed that the engine case was broken and that Rs.20,000/- would be the repair charges. Once clutch cable was broken and on another time, the brake got jammed. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the problems he has been facing for the last 39 months.
3. The first opposite party filed written version. The opposite parties 2 and 3 were set ex-parte.
4. The first opposite party, in their written version, has denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. They are manufacturing quality bikes that are well known world bike for their reliability and toughness. The complainant, without any basis or technical backing, has bluntly listed out various components and alleging that the opposite party is manufacturing low quality vehicle. The complainant has not regularly serviced his vehicle after the periodic free service. The last service was in March 2016 at a run of 18299 Kms. Thereafter the vehicle was brought only in September 2017. The repeated issues as alleged by the complainant are due to mishandling, rough usage and lack of maintenance. None of the issues is related to manufacturing of the vehicle. All the issues are caused due to wear and tear. The averment regarding clutch cable and brake jamming is absolutely false. Regarding jamming of the brake, the complainant has never approached the opposite party. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party. The attempt of the complainant is to see whether he can get the vehicle repaired under warranty since the warranty has expired. The first opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as prayed for. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1) Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle?
(2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A11 on the side of the complainant. At the time of evidence, the first opposite party has chosen to remain absent and PW1 was not cross examined. The report of the expert was marked as Ext.C1.
7. Heard.
8. Points 1 and 2: The complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The specific allegation in the complaint is that there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties in properly addressing the concerns of the complainant with regard to his motor cycle and thereby deficiency of service on their part.
9. In order to substantiate his case, the power of attorney and brother of the complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments of the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext. A1 is the invoice dated 24-05-2014 issued by the second opposite party, Ext A2 is the copy of the user’s manual and warranty conditions, Ext A3 is the copy of the registration certificate, Ext A4 is the printout of the email dated 06-10-2014, Ext A5 is the printout of the email dated 06-05-2015, Ext A6 is the printout of the email dated 25-11-2015, Ext A7 is the copy of the service invoice dated 21-12-2015 and Ext A8 to A11 are the copies of the image of the various parts of the motor cycle.
10. At the time of evidence, PW1 has alleged that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and has requested for a direction to the opposite parties to take back the defective motor cycle and refund the price. But on a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, it can be seen that there is absolutely nothing to show that the vehicle is having any inherent manufacturing defect. Even the complaint is silent about any specific allegation in this regard. Apart from a vague averment made in the proof affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder, the complainant has no specific allegation as to any inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext C1 report filed by the Asst. Motor vehicles Inspector after inspecting the vehicle in the presence of all the parties. In Ext.C1, it is reported by the learned expert that he is unable the say whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It reported that the engine crank assembly got cracked after a run of more than 36000 Kms and he is not in a position to say whether the damage is due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Thus Ext C1 is not helpful to the complainant to prove that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect. There is no other technical/expert report in this case which would indicate any inherent manufacturing defect to the vehicle. So the prayer for refund of the price after taking back the vehicle is not allowable.
11. It is in evidence that the engine crank assembly of the vehicle got cracked and it needs to be replaced. This particular complaint arose after the expiry of the warranty period and there is no evidence that it was as a result of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. So there is nothing wrong on the part of the opposite parties in demanding charges for the repair of the same.
12. However, there is evidence to the effect that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in attending properly the concerns of the complainant with regard to the vehicle. PW1 has categorically averred in the proof affidavit with regard to neglect of the opposite parties in attending the complaints properly. This is further evidenced by Exts A4 to A6 email communications. The vehicle was purchased on 24-05-2014 and on 06-10-2014 itself the complainant had sent Ext A4 highlighting the defects. The same is reiterated in Ext A5 and A6 also. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The second and third opposite parties have not turned up to file version. Though the first opposite party has filed written version denying the allegations, they also chose to remain absent at the time of evidence. There was no cross examination or contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant regarding deficient service. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on side of the complainant. The case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A11.
13. The evidence indicates that the complainant was put to severe mental agony and hardship due to the frequent failure of the vehicle and he was often deprived of the facility of using the vehicle due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The complainant deserves to be compensated adequately, even though is not entitled to refund of the purchase price. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.25,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
14. Point No.3: In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.335/2017 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to take necessary steps to repair/service KL-57-J-7566 Bullet Electra Motor cycle of the complainant and make it in a road worthy condition within 30 days of the production of the vehicle in the service centre by the complainant, if he so chooses. However, it is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to charge for such service/repair.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
e) The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27thday of July, 2023.
Date of Filing: 25-09-2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 - Invoice dated 24-05-2014 issued by the second opposite party.
Ext A2 - Copy of the user’s manual and warranty conditions.
Ext A3 - Copy of the registration certificate.
Ext A4 - Printout of the email dated 06-10-2014.
Ext A5 - Printout of the email dated 06-05-2015.
Ext A6 - Printout of the email dated 25-11-2015.
Ext A7 - Copy of the service invoice dated 21-12-2015.
Ext A8 - Copy of the image.
Ext A9 - Copy of the image.
Ext A10 - Copy of the image.
Ext A11 - Copy of the image.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Commission Exhibits
Ext C1- Inspection report of Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode.
Witnesses for the Complainant:
PW1 -Midhun Kumar U
Witnesses for the opposite parties:
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True copy,
Sd/- Assistant Registrar
