Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 423
Instituted on : 05.10.2020
Decided on : 27.05.2024
Rajnesh Kumar age 36 years, s/o Sh. Rajkumar, resident of H.No.850A/35, Janta Colony Rohtak, Haryana. Phone no. 9990720093, 9582804508.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Royal Enfield (A unit of EICHER Motors Ltd.) having its Head office at No.624, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Tiruvottiyur, Near Tiruvottiyur Bus Terminus, Chennai-600019.
- Badhwar & Company, Rohtak having its office at Shukntla Building, Delhi Road, Near Sonepat Stand Rohtak 124001. Mobile no.8059880030, 8059880031.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Lalit Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Yogender Singh, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Naveen Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are he had purchased a Royal Enfield bike Model Bullet 350 EFI Black, on 25th September 2020 from Badhwar & Company. He paid Rs.10000/- as booking amount on 03.08.2020 through receipt no.41008 dated 03.08.2020 and Rs.149660/- as full and final payment on 25.09.2020 through receipt no.42763 dated 25.09.2020. On 25.09.2020 just after riding about ten kilometres the same day, the above said vehicle suddenly started making unusual engine noise and got stopped on Kathmandi Railway flyover/bridge, Rohtak. On the call of complainant a mechanic of opposite party reached at the spot but failed to start the bike. Then complainant handed over the bike to the showroom staff. On 28.09.2020 the complainant received a call from Showroom that the defect of his bike was removed i.e. temperature sensor replaced on 25.09.2020 and now the same was in OK condition. Complainant took the bike from the showroom and while riding the bike, just after about 250 meters, bike again suddenly started making unusual engine noise and got stopped near Jagmohan Motors, Sonipat Road, Rohtak. Complainant again made a call to the showroom and two mechanics with one showroom staff reached at the spot and tried to start the bike but all in vain. Complainant again handed over the bike and 2nd key to Showroom Manager and went back home. On 30.09.2020 he again received a call from the showroom that the bike was OK and to take the bike and bill of the bike too. But complainant did not accept the delivery of faulty bike due to two times botheration in two rides of his bike. The said bike suddenly stops on the road which may prove fatal for rider’s life. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the full amount of claim i.e. rs.159660/-, to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental tension and inconvenience suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.20000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 filed its written statement and submitted in preliminary objections that complaint of complainant is not maintainable in the back drop of the settled principles of law which states that no direction for refund of purchase price or replacement of the product can be issued where the set is repairable. On merits, it is denied that the motorcycle of the complainant stopped after riding about 10 kms. with unusual engine noise. Upon receiving the information about the defect in the bike, the technicians of the opposite party checked the motorcycle and then picked the bike to the showroom for thorough check up. Upon inspection on 26.09.2020 it was found to be failure of ‘EOT Sensor’. The same was replaced and motorcycle was made in perfect condition. Respondent gave a test drive of motorcycle to the complainant’s entire satisfaction and handed over the same to the complainant. Complainant again made a complaint regarding the issue in the alleged motorcycle, then technician of opposite party again checked the motorcycle and found that there was no issue or defect in the motorcycle. The mechanic gave a test drive of around 15 kilometres to assure the complainant that there was no issue in the motorcycle. Upon several inspection and test drive it was found that the motorcycle was in perfect condition to be picked up by the complainant. There is no issue or other fault in the motorcycle in question and the complainant is not eligible for replacement of the same under the warranty terms and condition. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant purchased Royal Enfield motorcycle on 25.09.2020, which was manufactured by opposite party no.1. In the late evening hours on the same day, the complainant faced issues in starting of motorcycle upon which the motorcycle was brought to the opposite party. However, the same could not be inspected due to late hours and was inspected on 26.09.2020 and it was found to be failure of EOT sensor. The said sensor was immediately replaced and after test ride to the satisfaction of complainant, the motorcycle was delivered to the complainant. The complainant after taking away the motorcycle and driving it for some kilometres, informed the opposite party that the motorcycle had again stopped with some noise in engine, upon which the motorcycle was again brought to the opposite party and after inspection found ‘No Error Code on DOL Tool”. The electric inspection of the motorcycle was also conducted but no fault was found. Thereafter, for the satisfaction of the complainant, the motorcycle was driven for approx. 15 KMs by a technician but no fault was found or discovered in the motorcycle. The complainant at that time was assured that the motorcycle is not having any issue or fault but he refused to take back his motorcycle and rather, the complainant made an illegal and unlawful demand for replacement of his motorcycle with a new one. It is further submitted that opposite party is only a dealer whereas the liability of the product is of the manufacturer which in the present case is of opposite party No.1 as the warranty is given by the manufacturer and not the dealer. Even otherwise, the vehicle in question has no manufacturing defect and thus, under the terms of warranty, neither the motorcycle can be replaced nor price of the motorcycle can be refunded.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.07.2021. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and closed his evidence on dated 10.01.2022. Opposite party No.2 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence on dated 07.03.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Through this complaint the complainant has demanded the refund of amount of Rs.159660/- as the cost of motorcycle. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the complainant he had purchased a motorcycle from the respondent no.2 on dated 25.09.2020 and made the payment of Rs.10000/- and Rs.149660/- on dated 03.08.2020 and 25.09.2020 respectively. Just after the purchase of motorcycle when he rode the motorcycle about 10 kms., the motorcycle started creating noise and it stopped near Kath Mandi Railway Flyover, Rohtak. He approached the respondent no.2 and the mechanic of respondent no.2 taken away the bike with them. He received a call from the showroom of opposite party No.2 on 28.09.2020 that ‘temperature sensor replaced’ and your bike is now in OK condition. As per complainant it again started created problem and he handed over the same to the showroom of opposite party. Complainant received a call on 30.09.2020 that bike is in OK condition and to come and take the bike, bill and invoice. But he did not go to the showroom to take the bike. As per the written statement filed by the respondent no.1 it is submitted that under the terms of warranty, the opposite party is obliged to repair the motorcycle purchased by the complainant, free of charge during the period of warranty and subject to warranty terms and conditions. The warranty clause does not warrant replacement or refund of the purchase price of the motorcycle unless the product has some manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable in the backdrop of the settled principles of law which states that no direction for refund of purchase price or replacement of the product can be issued where the set is repairable. Respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant faced some issues in starting of motorcycle and upon inspection it was found to be failure of EOT sensor which was immediately replaced and after test ride the motorcycle was delivered to the complainant. The complainant after driving the motorcycle for some kilometres, informed the opposite party that the motorcycle had again stopped with some noise and after inspection found ‘No Error Code on DOL Tool”. The electric inspection of the motorcycle was also conducted but no fault was found. Thereafter, to the satisfaction of the complainant, the motorcycle was driven for approx. 15 KMs by a technician but no fault was found or discovered in the motorcycle. But the complainant refused to take back his motorcycle and rather made an illegal and unlawful demand for replacement of his motorcycle with a new one. It is further contended that the liability of the product is of the manufacturer which in the present case is of opposite party No.1 as the warranty is given by the manufacturer and not the dealer. Even otherwise, the vehicle in question has no manufacturing defect and thus, neither the motorcycle can be replaced nor price of the motorcycle can be refunded. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Complainant has not placed on record any job sheet. Merely Ex.C6, personal & motorcycle information has been placed on record, upon which respondent no.2 has mentioned that “Temperature sensor replaced’ on dated 25.09.2020 but in the written statement it has been specifically mentioned that they received the information regarding the defect in motorcycle on 25.09.2020 and on 26.09.2020, they removed the defect and job sheet was created. As per our opinion the complainant has failed to place on record any authentic document to prove the fact there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Only one job sheet has been generated on 26.09.2020 and perusal of this job sheet itself shows that sensor was replaced and thereafter the motorcycle was not any defect and the motorcycle was running smoothly. It is also observed that the motorcycle having engine no.U3K5F1LK372891 Chassis no.ME3U3K5F1LK734088 has already been got registered with the registration authority. To prove this fact opposite party has placed on record documents Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 i.e. copy of report of State Transport Department. As per document Ex.R5 the amount for registration of vehicle has been paid to the State Transport Department Rohtak on 05.10.2020. As per our opinion the complainant has failed to place on record any authentic evidence to prove the fact that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The defect of the motorcycle has already been removed by the opposite parties but the complainant failed to pick up the same from the opposite party No.2. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.05.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
