| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.136/2014 Shri Sham Lal Megwal S/o Late Sh. Ganga Ram, R/o H.N. 504, Sector- 16, Faridabad, Haryana- 121002 ….Complainant Versus Royal Enfield Motorcycles Ltd. (A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.) Regd. Office: A-3, District Centre, 3rd Floor, Select City Walk, Saket, New Delhi Eicher Motors Ltd. # 96, Sector- 32, Gurgaon, Haryana Sohan Auto World 1D/64, NIT Faridabad, Haryana- 121001 South Delhi Motorcycles TA- 203, Main Road, Guru Ravi Dass Marg, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 ….Opposite Parties Date of Institution : 04.04.2014 Date of Order : 25.03.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - Facts leading to the complaint as stated by the Complainant are that Complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Motorcycle, model ‘Classic 500’
on 08.10.2010 from Royal Enfield Motorcycles Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP-1, which earlier existed by the name of Swastik Motor Services. The said motorcycle subsequently was registered vide registration no. HR 51 AK 3008. It was purchased for consideration of Rs.1,30,469/-, which came with the warranty valid for one year from the date of purchase.
- Complainant alleges that the motorcycle had inherent manufacturing defects including serious engine malfunctioning for which, he visited
Eicher Motorcycles Ltd. (OP-2), Sohan Auto World (OP-3) and South Delhi Motorcycles (OP-4). It is stated that within two months from the date of purchase there was fault in the ECU unit of the said motorcycle. Complainant has alleged various defects in the motorcycle such as the sensor of the vehicle required to be changed, problems arose with the ignition coil of the vehicle, Air Filter Box of the vehicle blasted off and the paint of the vehicle started chipping. It is next stated that on 29.08.2011, the motorcycle suddenly and abruptly stopped functioning which the Complainant later came to know was due to the motorcycle consuming excess engine oil.
- In August, 2011, Complainant was again compelled to visit Swastik Motor Services with the problem of persisting defect and constant vibration in the engine. Also there was problem with the ‘Sprag Clutch’ as the bolt holding the same had a weak fitting and remained loose. It is further averred that OP-3 informed the Complainant that OP-1 used to mix Engine Oil with some spurious and non-graded oils and used to put the same in the motorcycles. Then in the month of June, 2012, crank rod of the motorcycle broke down.The motorcycle was kept for couple of weeks in the service center of South Delhi Motorcycles (OP-4) for which the Complainant had to shell out hefty sum of Rs.9,225/- for repairs vide bill dated 04.07.2012.
- It is also stated that the Complainant from September, 2012 to December, 2012 that is, within four months had to change and replace around 10-12 new spark plugs, that is one in every 60-70 kms. The Complainant then approached Sohan Auto World (OP-3) another authorized dealer of OP-1, wherein Complainant was informed that the ‘Sprag Clutch’ needed to be changed since entire gear mechanism of the vehicle had malfunctioned. Complainant again had to shell out Rs.5,579/- to carry out the necessary repairs. Complainant on 24.06.2013, got a brand new battery for the motorcycle and to his frustration the new battery got discharged very soon, when the motorcycle was taken to the service station, he was informed that there was problem with the electrical system of the vehicle and Alternator and charger had to be replaced. Complainant again spent Rs.2,608/- vide bill dated 09.07.2013.
- Finally, on 29.07.20 the motorcycle suddenly stopped functioning and the Complainant later on was informed that the engine has used all the engine oil within a short distance of 1200 kms. only. The Complainant’s son was informed by the service center (OP-4) that a Piston Kit and some other parts needed to be changed, which will require approximately Rs.12,000-13,000/- for repairs.
- Complainant was fed up and frustrated with the ongoing non-repairable defects being inherent in the said motorcycle and also of deficient services rendered by OPs. Hence, he approached the Commission with prayers to direct OP to provide a brand new motorcycle in lieu of the defective one together with additional sum of Rs.55,000/- spent by the Complainant on repairs, premature part replacement, abnormal wear and tear, uncalled maintenance and the resultant servicing of the bike together with 24% market rate of interest OR in alternative, it is prayed that OP be directed to pay sum of Rs.1,41,000/- spent on the purchase of the said motorcycle including insurance, registration and other miscellaneous expenses with additional sum of Rs.50,000/- spent on repairs and to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing unnecessary humiliation, harassment and to grant reimbursement of Rs.7,000/-per month since 07.08.2013 till realization of the said amount or replacement of the defective motorcycle with the brand new one alongwith interest @24%.
- OP-1 contested the claim of the Complainant and filed written statement wherein, it is stated inter-alia that the motorcycle/vehicle in question was used by the Complainant contrary to the norms and guidelines prescribed in the warranty card and other relevant documents issued by OP-1 to the Complainant at the time of purchasing of the vehicle. It is submitted that the claims on the proprietary items such as tyres, tubes, spark plug, batteries and ignition coil etc. are required to be taken up with their respective manufacturer directly by the customer and hence, OP-1 is not responsible to replace them in any manner whatsoever.
- It is next stated that the vehicle in question is not having any manufacturing defect but defects has been caused by driving the vehicle carelessly, in negligent manner and without adhering to the norms and guidelines prescribed by OP-1. It is also submitted that breaking of crank rod of motorcycle reflects the negligent, careless driving of the vehicle. Further the extent of dents on the fuel tank of the motorcycle, cut on the rear seat and appalling condition of the vehicle shows that, it is a clear case of gross negligence and mishandling of the vehicle.
- It is thus stated by OP that the complaint is totally false and frivolous therefore is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as the present complaint is preferred by the Complainant merely for the purpose of harassing and lowering the reputation of OP-1.
- Notice was issued to all the OP. As none appeared on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3, they were proceeded Exparte vide order dated 11.09.2014. Evidence by way of affidavit and Written Arguments are filed on behalf of Complainant and OP-1. Submissions made on behalf of Complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
- Complainant has alleged manufacturing defects in the motorcycle and deficiency in service of OP. To support his case, Complainant, among other documents has placed job cards to prove that he had visited the authorized service centers of OP-1. From the document appended at page 30 of the complaint, it is noticed that the Complainant, as per the records, had got four free services from the authorized service centers of OP-1 to his satisfaction. As per the fourth free service dated 16.03.2011, the vehicle in question had covered 9,140 kms. in a span of about 160 days. On 15.09.2011 the Complainant had got his vehicle serviced by paying Rs.2,500/- which, he was supposed to pay ,after four free services by OP1. The job card dated 4.07.2012 annexed as Annexure P/3 proves the fact that complainant’s vehicle for the first time went for repairs after ten months of it’s last free service and after almost one and half years of purchasing the motorcycle. His allegation that he had to pay for the spare parts is unfounded as he was supposed to pay for the same because the motorcycle was out of warranty by that time.
- Complainant’s allegation that OP1 mixed engine oil with other spurious and non graded oils is meritless as it is not substantiated with documentary evidence. Complainant’s grievance concerning the breaking of the crank rod of the vehicle is also found baseless as the crank rod broke out side of warranty and nearly one year and eight months after the purchase of the vehicle. Therefore, we opine the Complainant was required to pay reasonable charges for associated repairs. Furthermore as per OP’s reply to the notice of the complainant the cylinder piston kit was changed after the motorcycle had done 37,466 kms. This fact has not been controverted by the complainant in his pleadings. Therefore we are of the considered view that a vehicle which had covered 37,466 kms. cannot be alleged to have manufacturing defect. Alleged defects can be explained to be result of wear and tear of use and possibly negligent use. The same are certainly repairable. Moreover in the absence of any reliable technical/expert opinion it cannot be determined that the motor cycle had any manufacturing defects.
- Complainant has placed reliance on Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Ors. V/s Anurag Kapoor and R. Raja Rao V/s M/S Mysore Auto Agencies & Anr. by Hon’ble National Commission. The said judgments are distinguishable on facts. It is next pleaded that the Complainant’s motorcycle is lying with OP-4. OP-4 has chosen not to appear before us. Therefore the fact that the vehicle is still lying there and was left with OP-4 under what circumstances/understanding cannot be discerned from records. It is not the case of Complainant that he had left the vehicle with OP-4 with the permission of the Commission. Complainant has not placed on record any document to show that the vehicle had been retained by OP-4. Therefore we presume that it was left by the complainant unilaterally. This act of Complainant is akin to pre-deciding the Complainant and imposing penalty on OP-4.
- Therefore we opine that the Complainant is within his rights to pick up his vehicle from OP-4 and it is hoped that OP-4 would not charge any demurrage from Complainant for space occupied by the motorcycle.
- In view of the discussion above we find the complaint to be meritless, same is dismissed with no order to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
