DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V.
: SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING: 21.09.2023.
CC/242/2023
Sreenath.A, Avinjikkad House, - Complainant
R.Mangalam, Kannambra PO,
Palakkad-678 686.
(By Adv.Shibu Shamsudeen)
Vs
1. Royal Enfield, A unit of Eicher Motors Limited, -Opposite Parties
Tiruvottiyur High Road,
Tiruvottiyur, Chennai-600 019.
(By Adv.M.Anish Nair)
2. PVR Wheels, 12/360, 2nd Mile,
Kallekkad, Palakkad,
Kerala-678 006.
(OP2-Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief:-
The complainant purchased Himalayan Bike-B56 lake blue model from the 2nd opposite party on 26.05.2020 for Rs.2,36,922/-. On the date of delivery itself, after riding a short distance, the engine of the vehicle showed problems like abnormal sound, hard gear shift etc. He immediately contacted the 2nd opposite party and they asked to bring the vehicle. After checking, they informed him that, it is not a defect and since it is a new bike, the engine needs to be set after running few more kilometres.
But, even after the first service, the problems persisted and there were some new complaints also. He requested the 2nd opposite party to cure the defects under warranty. But, they rejected his request stating that the warranty is only available, if the company is satisfied that the bike has complaints.
Even after the second service at 5,000 kms, the 2nd opposite party did not take any action to rectify the defects. They removed the engine part and checked it; but were not ready to replace the engine.
After that, he contacted the customer support of the 1st opposite party and registered a complaint. Immediately, the dealers asked him to bring the vehicle and checked, and returned it saying that, there were no complaints. The complainant experienced cluster meter damages, engine issue and break down while running and he again registered complaint with the 1st opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant entrusted his bike with the 2nd opposite party as per their advice and they gave a spare bike to him for his use.
The 2nd opposite party returned the bike after a month. Only one part of the cluster meter and gear was replaced; the engine issue was not resolved. They returned it saying that, for complete disassembling of the engine, they need the approval of the company and once they get the approval they will contact him. But they did not contact him after that and so he approached another service centre as per the direction of the 1st opposite party.
They checked and replaced the engine head under warranty; but the vehicle started showing defects after few days. Then, he again approached another two service centres and they also could not resolve the issues in the bike.
Even after changing most of the engine parts under warranty, the problems in the bike continued. He requested the opposite parties to replace the bike as it had manufacturing defects or to replace the complete engine which is having repeated complaints. But, they were not ready to solve the problems. Even after entrusting the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party and other service centres, the engine problem is not resolved. Still, he is facing many issues including engine issue and breakdown while riding the bike.
So, he approached this Commission for directing the opposite parties to take back the defective bike and refund the full purchase amount. He also claims compensation for the loss incurred due to the various inconveniences, mental agony and cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party appeared and filed their version. Notice was served on the 2nd opposite party on 04.10.2023. The 2nd opposite party did not appear or file their version. So, their name was called in open court and they were set ex-parte.
3. The 1st opposite party in their version contended that, they are the manufacturer of Royal Enfield Motor cycle. They manufacture quality bikes and all the components used in the bikes are of best quality and thoroughly inspected before installing.
They operate with all its dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and any errors/omission, if any, at the time of retailing and servicing of the bike is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. The liability of the 1st opposite party is only limited to the manufacturing defects and the warranty policy and the dealer and service centres are not their agents.
They admit the purchase of the bike from the 2nd opposite party and states that as per the records, the complainant’s bike has travelled a considerable distance of 20198 km till 21st June, 2023 from the date of purchase and it would not have been possible for any bike having defects to cover such extensive mileage. Hence, the complainant’s bike is having no defects. During the first free service, the bike was duly serviced and all the issues in the bike were duly rectified by the 2nd opposite party.
After registering complaint, the 2nd opposite party had rectified the issues related with the instrument cluster and other minor issues under warranty. The bike was handed over in road worthy condition. The maintenance and repair works are part and parcel of its operation and it does not point out to any defect.
They denied the allegation of manufacturing defect and want of complete replacement of the engine. They admitted that, the defective parts are replaced under warranty, as and when, required and the complainant was only charged for consumable. The fact that the bike remained operational since the date of purchase clearly establishes that, it has no manufacturing defect. So, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. They further prayed for instructing the complainant to bring the bike to service centre for necessary inspection and rectification, if any, required.
4. From the pleadings of parties, the following points were framed for consideration:
1. Whether the motor vehicle in question suffers from any manufacturing defect?
2. Whether the opposite parties failed to give proper after sale service to the complainant as per warranty?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Any other reliefs/costs.
5. Complainant filed an application as IA.No.252/2024 to appoint an Expert Commissioner to inspect the vehicle. It was rejected as being belated and filed after the pre-trial step stage. Complainant did not file proof affidavit even after given chances on two postings on 29.04.2024 and 24.05.2024. Then, he filed an application to re-open evidence and it was allowed on cost. But, he did not comply with the order and his evidence was closed. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit. No documents to be marked from their side.
6. Point No.1
Complainant’s case is that, on the date of the delivery of the bike on 26.05.2020 itself, after riding the bike for short distance, the engine of the bike had showed problems such as abnormal sound, hard gear shift etc. Even after the first free service, the issues continued. Later, on he noticed few more complaints. Eventhough he approached the 2nd opposite party twice in connection with the issues, they returned it saying that there is no defect in the bike. Then, he registered a complaint with the 1st opposite party detailing the issues in the bike. Thereafter, the 2nd opposite party asked him to entrust the vehicle for repair and they provided him with a spare bike for his use.
They returned it after replacing some minor parts; but could not fix the real issues in the vehicle. Then as per the advice of the 1st opposite party, he approached other two service centres of Royal Enfield. They also inspected the vehicle and changed some parts of the engine under warranty. But he is still facing engine breakdown while running, cluster meter damage steering cone set issue, and key set issue and ABS wire damage. He contended that the issues in the vehicle is due to its manufacturing defect.
7. In order to prove his case, he filed an application to appoint an Expert Commissioner to inspect the vehicle. But, it was dismissed as being belated and filed after the time for taking pre-trial steps. Hence, eventhough the complainant enumerated a series of defects, he failed to adduce evidence by way of proof affidavit and report of the Expert Commissioner to show that these issues were due to the manufacturing defect. Point No.1 is decided against the complainant.
8. Point No.2 to 5
Complainant’s grievance is that even after free services and after changing most of the parts of the engine, the 2nd opposite party could not resolve the real issues in the bike. He is still facing engine issues and the problem of break down while riding.
The 2nd opposite party did not appear or file version.
The 1st opposite party in their version and affidavit contended that whenever the vehicle is brought to the 2nd opposite party, they properly attended and rectified the defects. The vehicle is in perfect roadworthy condition and it had covered 20198 km as on 21.06.2023.
The complainant did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents in evidence to show that the opposite parties failed to give proper and timely services. Eventhough he produced some documents (job cards and E-mail communication between the complainant and opposite parties) they are not marked in evidence. We can understand such conduct of a case, when a party is appearing in person. But here, he was represented by a counsel, well versed in the process of law. Thus, we are unable to overlook the shoddy manner in which, the case is conducted.
The opposite parties inspected the vehicle and changed many parts under warranty. But, according to the complainant, they did not fix the real issue. But, he did not adduce any evidence to prove this.
Even if the complainant’s claim is appears to be genuine, in the absence of any evidence, We cannot say that, the opposite parties did not provide proper service to the vehicle and there is any deficiency in service on their part.
Hence, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of November, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
VIDYA A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
