IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
C.C.No. 33/2023
PRESENT
SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT
SMT. S.SANDHYA RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER
SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER
ORDER DATED: 31-03-2023.
BETWEEN
- Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Centre,
(Rep.by State Secretary Sheela Jagadharan),
Mulakkal Vilayil, Thodiyoor North P.O.,
Karunagappally 690523.
- Vishnu Surendran,
Sasthri Bhavan, South Mynagappally,
Mynagappally P.O. 690519 : Complainants
AND
Service Manager,
M/s.Roverz Motors, Puthiyakavu,
K.S.Puram P.O., Karunagappally 690544. : Opposite Party
(By Adv.Bijimol K.)
ORDER
S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT
This complaint is for refund of amount, compensation and costs.
The first complainant is a consumer organisation and second complainant is the aggrieved consumer.
The second complainant is employed at the Government Poly Technic and relies on his Royal Enfield with registration number KL 61B- 4048 to fulfil his daily duty. On 21-04-2022, the complainant encountered an alignment issue after replacing the centre hub of his vehicle. To seek a resolution, the complainant sent an email to Royal Enfield's customer service. As a result, the opposite party contacted the complainant on 08-12-2022 and the vehicle was subsequently entrusted to them for curing the defects. The service technicians informed the 2nd complainant that certain parts needed to be changed for which Rs.3455/- was collected from him.
The issues with the vehicle persisted despite any attempts to resolve them. Besides the same, there was no positive response from the opposite party whenever the complainant contacted them. As the 2nd complainant was in need of the vehicle for his daily usage, he entrusted the vehicle with another service centre for rectifying the defects. That, it was found out that the defects were very minor and hence the 2nd complainant sent an email to the opposite party for refund of the amount collected from him. But in vain. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.
Despite acceptance of notice from this Commission, the Opposite party did not turn up, hence the Opposite party remains exparte. The 2nd complainant as PW1 has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits P1 to P9 on his part.
The issues that would arise for consideration are;
(i)Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
(ii)Whether the 2nd complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.
Points (i) and (ii): The allegations in the complaint are that the defects with regard to the centre hub of the complainant’s vehicle has not been timely rectified by the opposite party. On 21-04-2022, the complainant reported experiencing an alignment issue after replacing the centre hub of his vehicle. Seeking a resolution, the complainant reached out to Royal Enfield’s customer service via email. Subsequently, on 08-12-2022, the opposite party contacted the complainant and the vehicle was entrusted to them to remedy the defects. Following the diagnosis by the service technicians, it was determined that certain parts needed to be replaced, for which the complainant was charged Rs.3,455/-. Exhibit P1 corroborates the above contention of the 2nd complainant.
Exhibits P4 to P7 are the mails sent by the complainant to the opposite party with regard to the complaints and the problems he had faced due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. From the above documents it could be concluded that even after the service by paying the amount as referred above, the defects in the vehicle were not resolved.
From Ext.P8 reply, it is evident that the defects in the vehicle have been timely brought to the knowledge of the opposite party. The complainant has further pleaded that, he had registered a complaint through the toll-free number of the Royal Enfield in 1800210000 and though it was assured that the authorities concerned would call the complainant within 24 hours, nothing transpired. Further, 2nd complainant submits that, though the service team took the vehicle for service, the problems were not resolved besides the above the vehicle started producing a noise from the front wheel.
The 2nd complainant has mentioned in Ext P5 that, if the experts cannot resolve a wheel alignment issue of the vehicle from the authorised service centre of a reputed firm like Royal Enfield, he will be compelled to take the vehicle to an outside workshop. Hence the 2nd complainant, as informed to the opposite party, was compelled to do the service of the vehicle outside and pleads that the defects were rectified by the outside service centre.
The 2nd complainant further submits that there were only minor defects found and that the defects were relatively insignificant and the act of the opposite party in not discovering the defects which were minor in nature is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has pleaded he had to rely on alternate arrangements for his travel.
PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
Based on the documentary evidence and the affidavit of the complainant, it is apparent that the complainant has experienced hardship as a result of the opposite party’s failure to correct defects in the vehicle, which constitutes a
service deficiency. The 2nd complainant has established his complaint and hence found entitled to the claims.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund a total amount of Rs.3,655/- (Rs.3,455+Rs.200), along with an amount of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the 2nd complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall accrue interest at a rate of 9% until the full payment is made.
Dated this the 31st day of March 2023.
Sd/-
S.K.SREELA
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI
MEMBER
Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD
MEMBER
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
