IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2019
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 294/2016 (filed on 26/10/2016)
Petitioner : Saju Jose,
S/o. Joseph,
Kariyavil house,
Manjoor Village, Manjoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686603.
(Adv. Siby Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Royal Enfield,
Thiruvattiyur High road,
Thiruvattiyur, Chennai,
Pin – 600019,
Rep. by its Managing Director.
(Adv. Sharan Shahier, Adv. Nithin M.K.
And Adv. Nithin Sunny Alex)
2) Javeens Motoring (P) Ltd.
Chalukunnu,
Kottayam – 686001.
Rep. by its Manager.
(Adv. N. Gopalakrishnan)
3) Marikar (Motor) Ltd.
T.C. 26/1280, Panavilla,
Ootukuzhi, Thiruvananthapuram,
Pin - 695001.
Rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S., President
The complaint is filed on 26/10/2016.
The averments of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Royal Enfield Classic 350 CC motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-36E 7281 from the 2nd opposite party on 17/11/2015. The vehicle is having a warranty up to 2 years or 20000 kms. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for the 4th free service, the same was rejected by the 2nd opposite party stating that the vehicle had not been brought within 270 days or 9000 kms. The complainant is compelled for availing the 5th paid service and 2nd opposite party charged Rs.4890 for the paid service. The vehicle was involved in a road accident on 13/04/2016 and got repaid by the 3rd opposite party only 3 months after the accident. Due to that reason, the complainant was unable to produce the vehicle within 290 days or 9000 kms of ride. The denial of 4th service from the opposite parties amounts to deficiency. Hence this complaint is filed.
The notice was served with all the opposite parties; they appeared before the Forum and filed separate versions. The version of the 1st opposite party is as follows.
The 1st opposite party admits that he is the manufacturer of the vehicle. The 1st opposite party offers 4 free services to the vehicle and the conditions of the free services are stated in the owner’s manual. The coupon for the free service is also provided with the owner’s manual and the conditions for the free service are mentioned in the free service coupon also. According to the 1st opposite party, the final 4th free service shall be availed within 270 days or 9000 kms of ride whichever is earliest. It is also submitted by the 1st opposite party that the 3rd opposite party had replaced the speedometer of the complainant’s vehicle at 7198 kms and thereafter he used the vehicle for 3053 kms and then approached it for the 4th free service. The 1st opposite party further contented that the opposite party is not liable to conduct free periodical service in contravention with periodic maintenance schedule given in the owner’s manual. The 1st opposite party has not rendered any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the complainant.
The 2nd opposite party filed version and contented as follows.
The 2nd opposite party submitted before the Forum that the complainant brought the vehicle for service with the 2nd opposite party on 19/08/2016. On inspection, it was noticed by the 2nd opposite party that Odo meter reading was 3093 kms. There is a common software in all vehicle dealership with dealer moduled system. Through this system the service history of the vehicle can be brought to the notice of every dealer. On the service adviser feed the number of kilometers had exceeded the prescribed limit and the free service got rejected. In this case the complainant had completed the ride of 10251 kms. The Audo meter of the vehicle of the complainant was changed by the 3rd opposite party at 7198 kms, while the vehicle was repaired by the 3rd opposite party. It was brought to the notice of the complainant and the complainant agreed the same and entrusted the vehicle for the paid service on 09/08/2016. The 2nd respondent had not legally received any amount as service charge of complainant. The vehicle was released after service and the complainant received the vehicle with full satisfaction and that too after paying normal service charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
The 3rd opposite party contented that there is no specific allegation against 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party had undertaken accidental repairs of the vehicle. The 3rd opposite party denies the allegation of undue delay on the part of the 3rd opposite party in delivering the vehicle after repair.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext.A1 to A7. The territory service manager of the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 to B3. And the Manager of the 2nd opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Ext.B4 and B5 were marked from the side of opposite party. Considering the complaint, version and proof affidavit filed by the parties and documents available on record, we would like to consider the following points for the disposal of the complaint.
- Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party?
- Relief and costs?
Point No.1
It is admitted that the complainant had purchased a Royal Enfield Classic 350 CC motor cycle bearing Reg. No. Kl-36 E 7281 from the 2nd opposite party. Ext.b2 proves that the opposite party 1 had offered 4 free service to the motor cycle. As per the Ext.B2 maintenance schedule the 4th free service shall be done within 3 months from the date of delivery on completion of 3000 km of ride whichever is earlier. The complainant deposed that the first 3 free service has been done on time without any fault. The complainant deposed in the affidavit that when he approached the 2nd opposite party for the 4th free service, it was denied by the 2nd opposite party stating that the vehicle was not brought within the stipulated period of time of 270 days and 2nd opposite party had done the 5th paid service instead of the 4th free service. The explanation given by the complainant for not producing the vehicle within 270 days is that the vehicle had met with an accident and got repaired by the 3rd opposite party only after 3 months of accident. It is proved by the Ext.A4 ie. photocopy of the GD entry, that the vehicle has met with an accident at Anthiyoorkonam on 13/04/2016. The invoice issued by the 3rd opposite party dtd.15/06/2016 is produced and marked as Ext.A2. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties contented that the vehicle was brought for the 4th free service after the expiry of the warranty period, ie. either on or before 270 days or completion of 9000 kms. The 2nd opposite party contented that the odo meter of the vehicle was changed by the 3rd opposite party during the repair work due to the accident. In order to prove their case, the 2nd opposite party produced the copy of the service history of the vehicle, which was obtained from the dealer module system and marked as Ext.B4. On perusal of Ext.B4 we would see that the Speedo Drive, Speedo Cable and Classic Speed are replaced. In Ext.B4 it is recorded in the top portion “km 7,198 20/04/2016”. On perusal of Ext.A2 invoice, we would find that the 3rd opposite party had charged Rs.938.86 for Speedo Meter Classic (592099F) from the complainant along with another charges. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the first page of motor survey report (Final) dtd.28/07/2016 and it is recorded in A3 under ref. No. 7 ie. vehicle particulars, speedo meter reading is shown as 7,198 km. From the evidence of the Ext.A2, A3and B4, we are of the opinion that Speedo Meter of the vehicle was changed at 7,198 kms by 3rd opposite party while doing the repair works after the accident. The job card issued by the 2nd opposite party at the time of paid service marked on Ext.B5. On perusal of Ext.B5 we find that the vehicle was given for service on 19/08/2016 with an Odo reading at 3053 kms. The vehicle had given for the service on 19/08/2016 after the ride of 10,241 (7,198+3,053) kms to the 2nd opposite party. It is admitted by the complainant that he had purchased the motor cycle on 17/11/2015 and he had approached the 2nd opposite party for the 4th free service on 20/08/2016. That was only after 2 days of the expiry of the 270 days of purchase, but the complainant concealed the fact before the Forum that the Odo meter has changed at 7198 kms by 3rd opposite party. As per clause 3 of the Exhibit B3 opposite parties are liable only if all the 4 free service and 3 paid service are availed in the respective periods or range of kilometres as per the schedule in the owners manual.
On evaluating the available evidence on the record, we would find that the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party for 4th free service after a ride of 10,241 kms, that was beyond the stipulated condition for the last free service. Hence we are of the opinion that there is no act of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party.
From the above discussion, we would find that there is no merit in the complaint and hence it is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by
her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of August, 2019.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 : Copy of invoice dtd.20/08/16 issued by 2nd opposite party
Ext.A2 : Copy of invoice dtd.15/06/16 issued by 3rd opposite party
Ext.A3 : Copy of Motor survey report dtd.28/07/16
Ext.A4 : Copy of GD entry in Malayinkeezh police station dtd.21/04/16
Ext.A5 : Copy of warranty, terms and conditions of vehicle.
Ext.A6 : Copy of 4th free service issued by 2nd op
Ext.A7 : Copy of 5th paid service dtd.02/08/16
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 : Copy of 4th free service and service coupen
Ext.B2 : Copy of periodical maintenance
Ext.B3 : Copy of warranty, terms and conditions
Ext.B4 : True copy of proof of speedometer
Ext.B5 : True copy of job card No.8801 dtd.19/08/2016
By Order
Senior Superintendent
