ORDER

27.06.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant purchased Royal Enfield Thunderbird 500 motorcycle having registration no. DL11SJ2779 from OP1 on 23.10.2014. It is stated that the motorcycle is having trouble since day one and complainant had taken the motorcycle to dealer’s service center for repairs but they failed to fix the problem. It is stated that engine has been replaced after a run of 6000 kms and in the present case replaced after four weeks. It is stated that complainant has to travel through public transport. It is stated that motorcycle has been cost approximately Rs.2,00,000/- and quality has been compromised everywhere.
2. It is stated that complainant could have lost his life because of rear disk failure and earlier the problem was told to the OP but everytime they said it has been fixed. It is further stated that complainant met with an accident and spent Rs.30,000/- to get the bike repaired and fortunately did not meet with serious injuries.
3. It is stated that all the silver parts of the motorcycle reported rusted within two months of time and after so much argument with the service center they agreed to replace the parts as one time exception. It is stated that the issue is engine faced by complainant which started making some weird noise and OP officials started ignoring the issue which resulted in multiple visits and during these visits complainant spend money in fuel and also taken leave many a times. It is stated that the bike was kept for  couple of weeks for  testing and finally unable to fix the issue and offered to replace the engine but complainant did not agreed thereafter left with no choice and new engine installed with no additional free service or warranty.
4.  It is stated that digital meter and fuel gauge of the motorcycle is faulty, it never gives the correct reading of available and also replaced almost six seven times but the issue never fixed. It is stated that OP promised to replace it but never replaced. It is further stated that for the last few months there is small issue like clutch wire broke while reading the bike, problem with disk, disk pad life is less and something happened with rear disk. It is further stated that complainant reported to the service center that rear disk gets free anytime while driving the vehicle. It is stated that while driving the vehicle there is a life threat as brakes are not working properly but OP took it very casually when reported four five times and did not fix it.
5. It is stated that after all the repair something wrong noticed and one day motorcycle broke off on the highway and taken to Mahipalpur Service Station again it was repaired temporarily and next day it was brought to OP1 and they changed complete handle set and complainant paid Rs.1400/- including labour charges but still issue is there. It is stated that the service person told that the engine has been replaced and something is wrong which cannot be fixed without opening of the engine. It is further stated that in the next service complainant reported some issue and was suggested to  get the clutch plate replaced. It is stated that since meter and fuel gauge has been replaced many number to times, therefore, there is not idea that how many kilometers the motorcycle has been run. It is stated that the invested money in motorcycle and time has been wasted and complainant has to travel through public transport. It is further stated that OPs did not provide invoices and bills of service on the pretext that there is policy for not providing the same.
6. It is stated that complainant has been cheated by manufacturer and seller who are engaging in fraud and unfair trade practice. It is stated that the motorcycle is not of particular  standard, quality quantity, grade, composition, style and model and services are also not of particular standard, quality or grade despite of consumers paid money to buy the service and product.
7. The complainant is seeking direction against OP to process the replacement of the bike with a new one with different model and take back faulty one, to direct the OP1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and directions to frame such rules and regulations to ensure that OPs do not resort to unfair business practice and also award cost of litigation.
8. OP1 filed detailed WS and taken preliminary submissions that the present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. It is stated that he complainant has made false and misleading statements in its application against the respondents and has presented frivolous, baseless, incomplete facts and circumstances surrounding the instant case.
9. It is stated that complainant has come before this hon’ble court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is well settled law that a person who has not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to claim any relief. It is further stated that the intent of the complainant is clear from the fact that he has come before this forum after almost 1 year from the date of expiry of the warranty card and 3 years from the date of purchase of the said bike.
10. It is stated that the present complaint filed by the plaintiff’s is contrary to the real chain of even that took place and the complainant concealed the necessary information from this Hon’ble Forum and has twisted thetrue facts of the case to suit his convenience and to procure a relief, which complainant is otherwise not entitled too. It is further stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the respondents. It is stated that the entire case of the complainant is based on fictitious representations. The claims urged by the complainant are wholly mala fide, and the entire application and the claims made therein are based on misrepresentation of the acts of the respondents. It is stated that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with the sole intention of extorting money from the answering respondents.
11. It is stated that respondent no.2 is a unit of Eicher Motors Limited and has been a pioneer of powerful four stroke technology since 1955 in India. With its manufacturing base in Chennai, India, respondent no.2 offers a variety of models catering to the needs of the traditional segments, the enthusiasts, the leisure bikers and the urban youth. It is further stated that respondent no.1 is the authorized dealer of respondent no.2 since  the year 1997. It is stated that it is a one stop destination for sales, service and bike accessories. Respondent no.2 is very popular among the bike users of respondent no.1. It sells more than 200 bikes in a year. It has several followers on social media websites and has been given positive reviews by the customers on these websites.
12. It is stated that owing to the popularity of respondent no.2 most of the bike models have to be booked one or two months in advance with respondent no.1. It is further stated that respondent no.2 follows the best quality practices with respect to workmanship and materials used in its bikes. It warrants its bikes to be free from all manufacturing and material defect under normal use, subject to certain terms and conditions. It is stated that the customer at the time of booking and delivery is provided with a warranty booklet. It is stated that warranty guidelines also state that warranty does not apply to electrical equipments which are subjected to normal wear and tear. These warranty guidelines are also mentioned in the biker’s owner manual which is provided to the customers at the time of delivery of the bike. It is further stated that during the warranty period, only defective parts of the vehicle can be repaired or replaced free of cost and a new vehicle is not issued to the customer. The warranty guidelines specifically state that the obligation of respondent no.2 is only limited to repairing/replacing part (s) of the vehicle for free, only if the part (s), on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect. The components like electrical equipment, wiring harness etc, is not included within the warranty.
13. It is stated that the vehicles bought require routine maintenance and servicing. Maintenance schedules are based on time and distance. Owner’s manuals include a chart listing of the maintenance tasks. Vehicle parts require inspection, cleaning, replacement, adjustment and/or lubrication at regular intervals. It is further stated that complainant bought model ‘Classic-350 CC’ on 23.10.2014 from respondent no.1 for Rs.1,63,208.25. It is stated that all the issues of the complainant were resolved every time he had brought the said bike at the authorized service stations of the respondent no.1. It is clear from the bike history available with the respondent no.2. A mail stating the service history of the said bike and the type of service was sent to the complainant.
14. It is stated that all the issues reported by the complainant regarding the said bike was resolved effectively during the warranty period and ther were no issues unattended while the bike was in the warranty. The service station of the respondent no.2 even replaced the engine of the bike and several other servicing were conducted to satisfaction of the complainant. It is further stated that it was explained to complainant by the respondents that the sound is the signature sound of the engine and there is no abnormal noise from the engine as reported by him. It was further explained to complainant that the concern raised by complainant with respect to the engine sound relates to the characteristic sound of the engine and the said sound is within the normal bandwidth. This has no impact on the performance of the engine of the bike whatsoever. However, engine was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant.
15. It is stated that there have been no issues with the bike of the complainant every time servicing of the bike was done as per his satisfaction. There is no defect in his bike whatsoever. There was no issue or problem or manufacturing defect was found with any of the vehicle parts of the complainant’s bike. It was explained to him that according to warranty guidelines and company policies, a new vehicle cannot be issued to the customer and neither his money can be refunded. Only defective parts of the vehicle, if any, can be changed free of cost if the bike is within the warranty period.
16. It is stated that all the issues mentioned by the complainant were resolved during the servicing of his bike. Moreover, it was explained to the complainant that the problems reported by him such as rusting, disk pad and clutch problem, were due to the normal wear and tear of the vehicle parts and also because of the negligent/ incorrect driving habits of the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the complainant’s bike whatsoever. It is stated that full support and assistance was given to complainant at all times by respondent no.1 and his authorized service center while the bike was in the warranty period. There is no manufacturing defect in his bike whatsoever. Complainant’s vehicle is in good and roadworthy condition and suffers from no defect whatsoever. Complainant relied on judgment of Maruti Vs. HasmukhLal (2009) 3 CPJ.
17. It is stated that complainant has mala fidely filed this complaint to extort money from the respondent since the warranty period of the bike was expired in October 2016 and the said complaint is filled before this forum after almost 9 months of the said expiry. As per the first clause of warranty guidelines of the respondent it is expressly stated that “RE will replace or repair defective parts (s) at their dealerships and autorised service center, free of charge within a period of 24 months or 20,000 Kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier”. It is further stated that as per section 12 (3) of The Sales of Goods Act, 1930, Warranty is defined, “A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated”.
18. It is stated that full support  and assistance was given to complainant at all times by the respondents and his authoriozed service centers. There is no manufacturing defect in his bike whatsoever. Complainant’s vehicle is in good and roadworthy conditions and suffers from no defect whatsoever. The continuously increasing odometer reading of the bike of the complainant shows that the bike is in perfect running condition and the same is being regularly used by the complainant. Moreover, the bike being out of warranty, the complainant has filed the present complaint with mala fide intentions. The intent of complainant is appears to be ill motivated and to extract money from OP1. It is stated that claim made by complainant is baseless and incorrect. OP1 referred the judgment of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goyal and Ors. (30.10.2015).
19. It is stated that warranty is a contract and the expiry results in expiration of contract itself between the seller and the buyer. It is stated that as long as the motor bike was in the warranty period the OP1 has completely obliged with their duty. It is stated that the present complaint is ill motivated as the problems are faced by complainant are due to incorrect/negligent driving habits and normal wear and tear of the bike which is evident from the reading of odometer. The OP1 referred the judgment of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar Gavotra & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 1586.
20. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that complainant was explained that engine sound relates to the characteristic sound of the engine which is within the normal band width and this has no impact on the performance of the engine of the bike. It is stated that the engine was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant on 17.07.2015. It is stated that the fuel gauge was also replaced as per  satisfaction of the complainant during the warranty period. It is further stated that the issue of  clutch wire and disk pad was replaced even before the date of accident and the accident happened on 12.03.2017 when the warranty period of the said bike had expired. It is stated that complainant reported the issue of disk brake or clutch wire with service center on 12.03.2017.
21. It is stated that complainant reported the issue of handle on the day he met with an accident on 12.03.2017. It is stated that complainant gave bike for servicing with service center and driven more than 18,000 km and is out of warranty  for almost nine months. It is further stated that complainant was handed over with the original receipts of all the servicing whenever the bike was brought to authorized service center. It is stated that OP1 creates several service receipts due to which the physical records are destroyed for recycle and only the electronic records are stored without any signature of customer. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
22. OP2 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that complainant has made false misleading statement and presented frivolous, baseless incomplete facts and circumstances of the present case. It is further stated that complainant has not come before this hon’ble court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, therefore, not entitled to any relief. It is stated that complainant has approached this forum after almost one year from the date of expiry of warranty and three years from the date of purchase of the bike. It is stated that the complainant has twisted the true facts to suit his convenience and to procure relief for which he is not entitled.
23. It is stated that the entire case of complainant is based on fictitious representations, misrepresentation and with sole intention to extort money. It is further stated that OP2 is a unit of Eicher Motor Ltd. and has been a pioneer of powerful four stroke technology since 1955 in India. The manufacturing base is in Chennai India and OP2 offers a variety of models catering to the needs of traditional segment, enthusiasts, the leisure bikers and the urban youth. It is stated that OP2 manufactures quality bikes that are well known world wide for their reliability and toughness. It is further stated that the state of the art infrastructure to manufacture the same and is also has an active inhouse research and development wing. The bikes manufactured by OP2 are very popular and usually requires one or two months advance booking.
24. It is stated that when OP2 introduce new product, a dedicated team undertakes all related planning which includes a testing process and motorcycle design team is well equipped with high end CAD/CAM work stations and the latest modeling software. It is stated that top notch designers work continuously to come up with innovative bikes designs to meet the market expectations. It is stated that continuous rigorous testing of motorcycles and components is carried out by OP2 in its product development testing lab to come up  with more improvement in enhancing the customer experience. It is stated that OP2 manufacturing operations go through a series of modernization and improvement efforts, with a number of automatic processes.
25. It is stated that OP2 has put in place modern manufacturing practices like cellular layouts, statistical process controls and flexible manufacturing system. It  is stated that Chennai manufacturing facility has received the ISO9001 certification and for managing its operations in a clean and safe environment, it has also obtained the ISO14001 quality certification and KAIZENS are implemented to ensure the quality levels and are kept at an ever rising pace. It is stated that OP2 ensures that all the components used in the bike are sourced from the best vendors in Indian Automotive Industry, who are geared to supply according to companies stringent quality standards. It is stated that OP2 works closely for all of its suppliers, giving them technical and managerial support while maintaining practices like direct online and vendor self certification.
26. It is stated that OP2 exports motorcycles to 94 countries like the USA, Japan, UAE, Korea, Bahrain, UK, France, Germany, Argentina and many other countries through 92 importers and setup wide network of 12 brand stores, 600 dealers in all major cities and towns, 5 dedicated gear stores and over 200 authorized service centers. It is further stated that bikes manufactured by OP2 are around 65 to 65,000 sale per month and 8,00,000 bikes in a year. It is stated that OP1 is the authorized dealer of OP2 since 1997 and sells 200 bikes in India. It is stated that it has several followers on social media, website and has been given positive reviews by the customers on these websites.
27. It is stated that owing the popularity most of bikes models have to be booked one or two months in advance. It is further stated that OP2 follows the best quality practices with respect to workmanship and materials used in the bikes and warrants its bikes to be free from all manufacturing and material defect under the normal use, subject to certain terms and conditions. It is stated that customer at the time of booking and delivery is provided with a warrant booklet. It is stated that warranty guidelines also  state that warranty does not apply to electrical equipments which are subject to normal wear and tear. It is stated that these warranty guidelines are also mentioned in the biker’s owner manual which is provided to customers at the time of the delivery of the bike.
28. It is stated that during the warranty period only defective parts of the vehicle can be repaired or replaced free of cost and a new vehicle is not issued to the customer. It is stated that warranty guidelines specifically state the obligation of OP2 is only limited to repairing/replacing the parts of the vehicle for free only if the parts on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect and the components like electrical equipment, wiring harness etc. is not included within the warranty. It is stated that the vehicle bought requires routine maintenance and servicing based on time and distance maintenance schedule as per owners manual which includes a chart listing of maintenance task. It is stated that vehicle parts require inspection, cleaning, replacement, adjustment and/or lubrication at regular intervals.
29. It is stated that complainant bought model ‘Classic-350CC’ on 23.10.2014 from OP1 for Rs.1,63,208.25. It is further stated that all the issues of the complainant were resolved everytime when he had brought the bike at the authorized service center of OP2 which is clear from the bike history available and also sent to complainant. It is stated that all the issues reported by complainant regarding the said bike was resolved effectively during the warranty period and there were no issues unattended while the bike was in the warranty. It is further stated that the service  station of OP2 even replaced the engine of the bike and several other servicing were conducted to the satisfaction of complainant.
30. It is stated that it was explained to the complainant by the OPs that the sound is the signature sound of the engine and there is no abnormal noise from the engine as reported by the complainant and further explained that the concern raised by him with respect to engine relates to the characteristic sound of the engine and the said sound is within the normal band width and there is no impact on the performance of the bike, however, the engine was replaced to the satisfaction of complainant. It is stated that there have been no issue with the bike and every time serving of the bike was done as per satisfaction of the complainant. It is stated that there is no defect in the bike whatsoever and there was no issue or problem or manufacturing defect was found with any of the vehicle part of the bike. It is stated that it was explained to the complainant that according to warranty guidelines and company policy a new vehicle cannot be issued to the customer and neither his money can be refunded. It is stated that only defective parts of the vehicle if any can be changed free of cost if the bike is within the warranty period.
31. It is stated that all the issues mentioned by complainant were resolved during the servicing of the bike and it was explained that the problems reported by complainant as rusting, disk pad and clutch problem were dur to normal wear  and tear of the vehicle parts and also because of negligence/incorrect driving habits of the complainant and there was no manufacturing defect in the bike whatsoever. It is further stated that full support and assistance was given to complainant at all times by OP2 and its authorized service center while the bike was under warranty period. It is stated that bike is in good and roadworthy conditions and suffers from no defect. OP referred to the judgment of Maruti Vs. HasmukhLal (2009) 3 CPJ 229.
32. It is stated that complainant has mala fidely filed the complaint to extort money from OP2 since the warranty period of the bike was expired in October 2016 and present complaint filed after almost nine months of the said expiry period. It is stated that as per first clause of warranty guidelines that “RE will replace or repair defective parts at their dealerships and authorized service center, free of charge, within a period of 24 months, 20,000 KM from the date of sale whichever is earlier. The warranty is defined as per section 12 (3) of the Sales of Good Act, 1930. It is stated that the continuously increasing odometer reading of the bike shows that the bike is in perfect running condition and the same is being regularly used by complainant. It is stated that complainant is falsely alleging that there are issues with the bike. It is stated that the claim of the complainant is baseless and incorrect. The OP2 referred the judgment of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goyal and Ors. (30.10.2015) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar Gavotra & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 1586.
33. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
34. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and OP2 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that bare perusal of the bike history sheet speaks volume about the poor quality of the spares the bike was equipped with as it was purchased in October 2014 and from as early as November 2014 onwards and until September 2015 OP replaced the spares under warranty on at least 11 occasions, ipso facto admitting the defective spares placed in the bike. It is stated that defective and inferior unit of bike was sold to the poor complainant despite its paying a huge price. It is further stated that even after replacement of several parts including engine or assurance of OP the bike remained defective. It is stated that the bike is having manufacturing defect which are not fixed by the OP1. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
35. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit. In the affidavit contents of complaint reiterated. Complainant relied on photocopy of motor bike RC dated 28.10.2014, photocopy of invoice dated 27.10.2014, copy of insurance policy dated 20.10.2016, copy of report by service center and photocopy of all correspondence through email.
36. OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Virender Shokeen Attorney. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP1 relied on copy of warranty guidelines Ex.RW1/2, copy of email dated 01.06.2017 Ex.RW1/3, copy of replacing of engine on 17.07.2015 Ex.RW1/4 and copy of job card dated 12.03.2017 Ex.RW1/5.
37. OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Harish Parkash Sharma Attorney. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP2 relied on Special Power of Attorney Ex.RW1/1, copy of warranty guidelines Ex.RW1/2, copy of email dated 01.06.2017 Ex.RW1/3, copy of job card dated 17.07.2015 Ex.RW1/4 and copy of job card dated 12.03.2017 Ex.RW1/5.
38. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant, OP1 and OP2.
39. We have heard complainant in person and Ms. Saumya Pandey proxy for Ms. Divya Arora counsel for OP1 and 2.
40. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased motorcycle manufactured by OP2 from the showroom of OP1 authorized dealer on 23.10.2014, the model is Classic-350 CC for Rs.1,63,208.25. The OP1 filed vehicle history sheet. We have gone through the detailed vehicle history sheet and the job sheets attached to it. The motorcycle of the complainant after purchase on 03.11.2014 received at the service center, as per job sheet the kilometer were 526 and engine oil and oil filter were changed. Thereafter on 19.03.2015 at Kilometer 3916. In this job sheet ammeter replaced, speedometer replaced and also trafficator Assy LH front, horn LT, Horn HT, instrument cluster and trafficator Assy RH front. Thereafter on 10.04.2015 at kilometer 4120. Headlamp casing changed, fork and LH /RH changed, and also rear shock absorber and headlamp  holder RH related work also done. Thereafter on 21.04.2015 at 4200 kilometer engine oil and oil filter were taken. On 02.06.2015 at 4500 km exhaust pipe and  silencer, cam spindle replacement were done. On 12.06.2015 at 4560 km change front hub and copper exhaust gas kit. On 05.07.2015 at 5000km R&R clutch plates, thereafter on 07.07.2015 at 5100 km exhaust pipe and silencer. On 17.07.2015 at 5120 Km engine oil and oil filter changed, replaced fuel gauge, common key set replacement, replaced speedometer, exhaust pipe and silencer. On 22.08.2015 at 6621 km rear view mirror. On 27.09.2015 at 6300 Km break pad rear caliper-mt and miscellaneous labour work. On 13.02.2016 at 6502 km general service, chain lubrication, battery treatment and addon. On 13.03.2016 at 6685 km disk pad check and change and change front brake pads. On 17.04.2016 at 6845 km SS hos clip. On 08.07.2016 at 6900 km general service chain lubrication. On 13.09.2016 at 7579 km miscellaneous labour work. On 12.10.2016 at 8109 km miscellaneous labour work. On 28.11.2016 at 11361 km general service. On 28.11.2016 at 11321 km rider foot rest assy RH. On 31.12.2016 at 13081 km miscellaneous work break pad kit, rear caliper. On 21.02.2017 at 15349 km general service. On 12.03.2017 at 15605 km miscellaneous accessories work amounting to Rs.25,368/-. On 19.03.2017 at 15906 ball raise kit miscellaneous labour work. On 09.04.2017 at 17108 km brake pad set front. On 04.05.2017 at 17613 km brake pad kit rear. On 15.05.2017 at 18219 km general service and miscellaneous work. On 03.09.2017 at 17215 km general service, R&R master cylinder, battery checking and charging. On 03.09.2017 at 17315 km several miscellaneous work. On 06.10.2017 at 17524 rear view mirror RH. On 26.11.2017 at 18412 km general service. On 26.11.2017 at 18412 engine oil, air filter, break, break pad, clutch cable etc.
41. As per vehicle history sheet from 03.11.2014 till 27.09.2015 the vehicle was under warranty no charges were paid. However, thereafter, charges were paid. The job sheet dated 12.03.2017 shows that it was accidental repairs. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP1 and 2 admitted that OP2 replace the engine of the bike during the warranty period. The vehicle history sheets established that several parts of the motorcycle was changed from time to time. The complainant alleged that the motorcycle sold by OP1 and 2 is having manufacturing defect.
42. In the case of “ Classic automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra” as reported in I [2010] CPJ 235 (NC) wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission while dealing with the similar case has hold as under:

“ The onus to prove that there existed a manufacturing defect was on complainant/respondent No.1. We agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent nO.1 failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect by producing any cogent evidence. Complainant failed to produce expert evidence as provided under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.”

43. Further, under catena of Judgements name “EID Parry Vs. Baby Benjamin-I (1992) CPJ 279, Tata Motors Vs. Sunil Bhasin –III (2008) CPJ 111, Chandreshwar Vs. Telco-I (2007) CPJ 2, Diamond Cement Vs. Rai Prexin India Pvt. Ltd. I (2003) CPJ I and Lovely Vs. Harmesh Lal-I (2007) CPJ 312.” On similar issues, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that expert opinion is a condition precedent for establishing manufacturing defect.
44. Applying the above discussed principle of law in the present facts and circumstances  of the case it is clear that firstly the onus of proof is upon the complainant to prove that the purchased vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. However, in the present case  the complainant has not made any effort  to seek the expert opinion or to file evidence to prove the manufacturing defect. It is pertinent to mention here that it is admitted case of the parties that the engine of the motorbike was replaced by OP manufacturing company. As  per vehicle history sheet within three  years of purchase of the motorbike it has run about 18412 KM till 26.11.2017. Although complainant alleged that after few days or within a month he has to visit the service center for one problem or the other. It is admitted by complainant that the motorcycle also met with an accident and OP carried out the necessary repairs. The complainant failed to establish that accident took place due to manufacturing defect. It is admitted case that complainant abundant the said motorcycle at the service center of the OP. As per record the complainant has failed to establish manufacturing defect in the purchased motorcycle.
45. It is admitted case of the parties that since the purchase of new motorcycle as per vehicle history sheet complainant regularly visited the service center of the OP. It establish  that complainant suffered lot of inconvenience and misery due to regular problems occurred in the new motorcycle. The problem ranges from minor repairs to replacement of engine of newly purchased motorcycle. The regular occurrence of problem and visit of the complainant to service center of OP must  have caused harassment, inconvenience and mental agony. In these circumstances it is established on record that OP1 and OP2 are guilty of deficiency of service.
46. On the basis of above  observation and discussion we direct OP2 manufacturing company to pay compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. In case OP2 failed to pay the abovesaid amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, than liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment.

47. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  27.06.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                   NIPUR CHANDNA                         

       PRESIDENT                                                             MEMBER