Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/147/2021

Mr. S.M. Rajkumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sreehitha Auto Zone Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Manager and another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Venkat Raman

28 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:22.09.2021

  Date of Reservation     :15.06.2023

  Date of Order              :28.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.147/2021

WEDNESDAY,THE 28^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

Mr. S.M.Rajkumar,

S/o. Muthaiah,

No.34, F3, 1^st Floor Dhanalakshmi Nagar,

2^nd Street, Alapakkam,

Porur, Chennai – 600 116.                                               .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

1.Srechitha Auto Zone Pvt Ltd,

   Rep-by Rep by its Manager,

   No:6c. North Phasedevloped plot,

   Ekkatuthangal,

   Chenna-600 032.

 

2.The Managing Director,

   Royal Enfield,

   No 624. Tiruvottiyur High Road,

   Tiruvottiyur,

   Chennai – 600 019.                                                   .. Opposite Parties.

 

* * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant         : M/s. R. Venkat Raman

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party       : Exparte on 15.06.2022

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party    : M/s. K.S. Jeyaganeshan

 

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel the 2^nd Opposite Party, this Commission delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties and prayed for the cost of purchased bumper sum of Rs.3450/- and for a sum of Rs.96,550/- towards breach of trust for deceiving saying that original material and issued the local Bumper/engine guard, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards hardship and loss caused to meet his needs and making his life miserable till today, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the hardship and loss caused on account of the acts on deficiency in service and wilful negligence unfair trade practice committed by both the Opposite Parties, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Mental agony and strain sustained and suffered due to unfair trade practice and to pay interest from the date of filing the complaint till the date of the payment by the Opposite Party.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that he is a Nursing Officer at Jipmer Pondicherry and he had purchased a Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350 ABS stone Bike for a sum of Rs.1,56,658/- from 1^st Opposite Party agency on 06.02.2020.The said vehicle was manufactured by 2^nd Opposite Party herein. He had purchased the said vehicle along with the Bumper/engine guard by paying a sum of Rs.3450/- as extra payment but the 1^st Opposite Party had not given the Invoice bill for the said Bumper/engine guard,while purchasing the said Bumper/ Engine guard the 1^st Opposite Party had promised that the said part Bumper/ engine guard and every part were originals and were manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party.

2. The Complainant submitted that to his shock and surprise the said Bumper/engine guard had automatically broken on September 2020 and had approached 1^st Opposite Party to change the said broken bumper/ engine guard. The 1^st Opposite Party had requested him to produce the bill invoice for the said Bumper/engine guard, for which he had informed that invoice bill was not given to him. Only thereafter the 1^st Opposite Party had given a invoice dated 26.09.2020 and the 1^stOpposite Party had also changed the said defective Engine guard/ Bumper.

3. The Complainant submitted that to his shock and surprise the said changed Bumper/ Engine guard had once again broken in the same spot and he had once again went to the 1^st Opposite Party and had changed the said defective/ broken Bumper/engine guard on 03.10.2020 at Rooster Automobiles Puduchery. Even thereafter on 11.11.2020 and on 10.12.2020 he had changed the Bumper/Engine Guard for having broken, at classic Motors, Usilampatti and at 1^st Opposite Party, respectively. Further as the bumper/ engine guard had broken in the same spot within a week,on 17.12.2020 when he had approached 1^st Opposite Party who had failed to change the same till date.

4.     The Complainant submitted that as he had believed the Royal Enfield is an century old company will render a very good service to the consumers and had believed Opposite Party will render good and efficient service and the manufactured parts are originals and the same was sold to the customers and on believing the same as true and with a fond hope that 1^st and 2^ndOpposite Party will also render good service, he had purchased the above said vehicle and parts and had been using the same for his domestic purpose.

5.     The Complainant submitted that from the very date of the purchase itself, he had been suffering with the said vehicle at the Opposite Parties hands, and till date the Complainant had changed several times the bumper/engine guard. On several occasions he had rode the bike without the sad bumper/ engine guard. The purpose of bumpers is to reduce or prevent physical damage to the front and rear of vehicles in low-speed crashes and the bumpers are designed to protect the hood, trunk, grill, fuel, exhaust and cooling system. A bumper is a shield that is usually made of steel. aluminum. As the said bumper is made of Steel it is pertinent to point out that when the vehicle was rode in a highway the said bumper seems to be breaking, the issue shows the quality of the said steel used in bumper/engine guard.

6.     The Complainant submitted that in view of the basic manufacturing defect and also in view of the defaulting and deficiency in service by both Opposite Parties, he had been put in to untold hardship, mental agony apart from the inconvenience caused to him.

7.     The Complainant submitted that he had been complaining about the above said inherent defect from the date of purchase persistently and the Opposite Parties are showing deaf ears and not even bothered to rectify the said defect. He had made several complaints on 22.12.2020 to the Opposite Party's customer redressal team and by mail dated 23.12.2020 the Opposite Party had simply called and stated they will resolve the problem and never done the same. Once again on 29.12.2020 he had made a complaint and Opposite Party had given the same reply on 31.12.2020 and his grievance was not solved.

8.     The Complainant submitted that he had made several mail to both the Opposite Parties and had not made any progress to solve his grievances. The Opposite Parties miserably failed on bounden duty and such conduct discredits the trust and confidence reposed in the Opposite Parties services. This a very serious crime and such gruesome conduct is condemnable and reprehensible, hence both the Opposite Parties are responsible for the pitiable plight of the Complainant.

9.     The Complainant submitted that he had sent a Notice dated 27.01.2021 and had sent a legal notice an 11.02.2021 to the Opposite Parties both the Opposite Parties had received the Notice and never cared to reply nor complied with his just and legitimate demands till date. Hence the complaint.

II. Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

10.    The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted that the Bumper/ Engine guard and every part are original and are manufactured by them for all the vehicles. The other averments are not within their knowledge.

11.    The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted that their company is a 120 year old company and always render good services and all the manufacturing parts of their company products are Original. They had always set out high standards service personnel and the machineries used are of the state of art class and they also have a good infrastructure for service will well equipped equipment's. The Complainant had also taken the vehicle with full satisfaction from the other dealers.

12.    The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted that the parts are made up of steel, during the manufacturing there are numbers of engineering factors which are reviewed before designing. Their design validation undergo numerous CAE simulations to establish the design robustness which includes welded joints and fatigue during the manufacturing process. The said process is then followed up and validated through the physical testing with off tool, off process parts both in India & the UK Technical Centre, which also include the on-road durability, pave and drop tests to name a few all these are tested by their test teams. They being a manufacturer of the alleged vehicle followed the Production Part Approval Process to define the systems and process variables in order to maintain consistency. Further submitted that the material checks of the grade of mild steel (Black) or stainless tell (silver) used in these products. Also a weld penetration test s carried out on the welded joints to ensure weld parameters are set to achieve the correct level of penetration.

13.    The 2^nd .Opposite Party submitted that they are not a necessary party to this issue. The Complainant has not made out a case as against them. The Complainant has not established the case for negligence. The relationship between them and the 1^st Opposite Party is only on a principle to principle basis and hence they are not a necessary party since the Complainant has not made a case for manufacturing defect. Further submitted that the dealer is authorized to change the same if the part had manufacturing defect without any external impact. The terms and conditions are clearly explained in the invoice, as all the parts manufacture carry a 2 years by warranty and all the authorized dealer after checking the defects if any can be sorted out by the dealer themselves. The damage part if any is within the warranty period and the same can be replaced by the dealer themselves and the damaged part need to send to them and the same can be claimed by the dealer. The vehicle will have its own wear and tear problem and the vehicle condition is depending upon the individual maintenance and handling of the vehicle. The Complainant has not produced any other documentary evidence to prove that there is a manufacturing defect.

14.    The Opposite Party submitted that no cause of action has happened as against them, as the 1^st Opposite Party had attended the vehicle and the Complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction.

15.    The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant has not made out any case for the reliefs claimed and as the averments are denied as false and the Complainant has to prove the same. Hence prayed to dismiss the compliant.

III. The 1^st Opposite Party was set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the 1^st Opposite Party and was duly served to the 1^st Opposite Party. Despite the notice being served to the 1^st Opposite Party was failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the 1^st Opposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

IV. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit,  in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 7 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A7. The 2^nd Opposite Party had submitted his proof affidavit. On the side of 2^nd Opposite Party no documents was marked on his side.

V. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

 

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

 

   3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?

 

 

 

POINT NO. 1 :-

16.    The contentions of the Complainant are that he had purchased a Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350 ABS stone Bike of the 2^nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.1,56,658/- along with the Bumper/engine guard by paying a sum of Rs.3450/- as extra payment, from 1^st Opposite Party agency on 06.02.2020. But the 1^st Opposite Party had not given the Invoice bill for the said Bumper/engine guard, while purchasing the said Bumper/ Engine guard it was promised by the 1^st Opposite Party had promised that the said part Bumper/ engine guard and every part were originals and were manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party. But to his shock and surprise the said Bumper/engine guard had automatically broken on September 2020 and had approached 1^st Opposite Party to change the said broken bumper/ engine guard, in turn the 1^st Opposite Party had asked him to produce the bill invoice, as it was informed that the bill was not provided at the time of purchase, only then the 1^st Opposite Party had given an invoice dated 26.09.2020 and the said part was also changed the said defective Engine guard/ Bumper.

17.    Further contended that to his shock and surprise the said changed Bumper/ Engine guard had once again broken in the same spot and again went to the 1^st Opposite Party and had changed the said defective/ broken Bumper/engine guard, further on 03.10.2020 changed at Rooster Automobiles Puduchery. Even thereafter on 11.11.2020 and on 10.12.2020 he had changed the Bumper/Engine Guard for having broken, at classic Motors, Usilampatti and at 1^st Opposite Party, respectively. Further as the bumper/ engine guard had broken in the same spot within a week,on 17.12.2020 when he had approached 1^st Opposite Party who had failed to change the same till date.

18.    Further contended that only believing that the 2^nd Opposite Party is an century old company will render a very good service to the consumers and had believed Opposite Party will render good and efficient service and the manufactured parts are originals and the same was sold to the customers and on believing the same as true and with a fond hope that 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party will also render good service, he had purchased the above said vehicle and parts and had been using the same for his domestic purpose. From the very date of the purchase itself, he had been suffering with the said vehicle at the Opposite Parties hands, and till date the Complainant had changed several times the bumper/engine guard.

19.    Further contended that on several occasions he had rode the bike without the said bumper/ engine guard, as the purpose of bumpers is to reduce or prevent physical damage to the front and rear of vehicles in low-speed crashes and the bumpers are designed to protect the hood, trunk, grill, fuel, exhaust and cooling system. A bumper is a shield that is usually made of steel, aluminum. As the said bumper is made of Steel, more particularly when the vehicle was rode in a highway the said bumper seems to be breaking, which issue shows the quality of the said steel used in bumper/engine guard.

20.    Further contended that in view of the basic manufacturing defect and also in view of the defaulting and deficiency in service by both Opposite Parties, he had been put in to untold hardship, mental agony apart from the inconvenience caused to him. He had been complaining about the above said inherent defect from the date of purchase persistently and the Opposite Parties are showing deaf ears and not even bothered to rectify the said defect. He had made several complaints on 22.12.2020 to the Opposite Party's customer redressal team and by mail dated 23.12.2020 the Opposite Party had simply called and stated they will resolve the problem and never done the same. Once again on 29.12.2020 he had made a complaint and Opposite Party had given the same reply on 31.12.2020 and his grievance was not solved.

21.    Further contended that inspite of his several mails to both the Opposite Parties and had not made any progress to solve his grievances and miserably failed on bounden duty and such conduct discredits the trust and confidence reposed in the Opposite Parties services. This a very serious crime and such gruesome conduct is condemnable and reprehensible, hence both the Opposite Parties are responsible for the pitiable plight of the Complainant.

22.    Further contended that he had sent a Notice dated 27.01.2021 and had sent a legal notice an 11.02.2021 to the Opposite Parties both the Opposite Parties had received the Notice and never cared to reply nor complied with his just and legitimate demands till date.

23.    The contentions of the Opposite Party are that the Bumper/ Engine guard and every part are original and are manufactured by them for all the vehicles and the other averments are not within their knowledge. Their company is a 120 year old company and always render good services and all the manufacturing parts of their company products are Original. They had always set out high standards service personnel and the machineries used are of the state of art class and they also have a good infrastructure for service will well equipped equipment's. The Complainant had also taken the vehicle with full satisfaction from the other dealers.

24.    Further contended that the parts are made up of steel, during the manufacturing there are numbers of engineering factors which are reviewed before designing. Their design validation undergo numerous CAE simulations to establish the design robustness which includes welded joints and fatigue during the manufacturing process. The said process is then followed up and validated through the physical testing with off tool, off process parts both in India & the UK Technical Centre, which also include the on-road durability, pave and drop tests to name a few all these are tested by their test teams. They being a manufacturer of the alleged vehicle followed the Production Part Approval Process to define the systems and process variables in order to maintain consistency. Further contended that the material checks of the grade of mild steel (Black) or stainless tell (silver) used in these products. Also a weld penetration test is carried out on the welded joints to ensure weld parameters are set to achieve the correct level of penetration.

25.    Further contended that the Complainant has not made out a case as against them and the Complainant has not established the case for negligence. As the relationship between them and the 1^st Opposite Party is only on a principal to principal basis and hence they are not a necessary party since the Complainant has not made a case for manufacturing defect. Further submitted that the dealer is authorized to change the same if the part had manufacturing defect without any external impact. The terms and conditions are clearly explained in the invoice, as all the parts manufacture carry a 2 years by warranty and all the authorized dealer after checking the defects if any can be sorted out by the dealer themselves. The damage part if any is within the warranty period can be replaced by the dealer themselves and the damaged part need to be sent to them and the same can be claimed by the dealer.

26.    Further contended that the vehicle will have its own wear and tear problem and the vehicle condition is depending upon the individual maintenance and handling of the vehicle. The Complainant has not produced any other documentary evidence to prove that there is a manufacturing defect.

27.    Further contended that no cause of action has happened as against them, as the 1^st Opposite Party had attended the vehicle and the Complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction. And the Complainant has not made out any case for the reliefs claimed and as the averments are denied as false and the Complainant has to prove the same. Hence prayed to dismiss the compliant.

28.    On discussions made above and on perusal of records, the Complainant on 06.02.2020 had purchased a Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350 ABS stone Bike for a sum of Rs.1,56,658/- from 1^st  Opposite Party as seen in Ex.A-1. Sales Invoice dated 26.09.2020 Ex.A-2, issued by the 1^st Opposite Party evidences purchase of Engine Guard/Airfly/Mild Steel/Black for a sum of Rs.3,450/-, by the Complainant. Ex.A-3 is the Mail dated 08.11.2020 sent by the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party, for which a reply mail dated 10.11.2020 was sent by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant seeking details and address of the dealer to resolve the Bumper issue. Ex.A-5 is the Grievance details sent through message to the 2^nd Opposite Party explaining about the change of Engine guard/Bumper on several occasions and on 17.12.2020 when he approached the 1^st Opposite Party for change of broken engine guard it was informed by the 1^st Opposite Party that it is not their problem, it might have occurred due to manufacturing defect in the product or in the vehicle, hence only on approval from the 2^nd Opposite Party they will replace the Engine guard and in spite of his follow up on 18.12.2020 and 21.12.2020, even thereafter his issue was not solved and on 18.12.2020 he had received a call from 2^nd Opposite Party customer service on the complaint registered in National Consumer helpline, had assured to resolve his said issue within 24 hours, but had not resolved, for which on 25.12.2020 it was replied that his issue was resolved to his satisfaction and if not resolved to write to their given mail address or to contact their given telephone number, further on 29.12.2020 the helpline agency had replied that his grievance was responded as per Company’s policy terms and if not satisfied with the same the Complainant was advised to approach Consumer Commission. Hence the Complainant was constrained to issue Ex.A-6, legal notice dated 27.01.2021 to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party mentioning about the non-response to his grievance regarding engine guard/Bumper issue and had claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages, the 2^nd Opposite Party on receipt of the said legal notice had replied through mail dated 04.03.2021 regretting their inconvenience caused and their team would revert at the earliest, but the 1^st Opposite Party in spite of receipt of the said legal notice had not responded.

29.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that though the Complainant claimed in the complaint that he was not provided an Invoice Bill by the 1^st Opposite Party for the purchase of Engine Guard/Bumper on 06.02.2020 on extra payment of Rs.3450/- when he had purchased his vehicle from the 1^st Opposite Party, in Ex.A-6 the Complainant has not mentioned about the same and had mentioned that the Bumper was purchased on 26.09.2022. It is to be noted that the 2^nd Opposite Party being the manufacturer had averred that the Engine Guard/Bumper has 2 years warranty and if at all any issue in the said product the dealer could replace, as the relationship between them and the 1^st Opposite Party, is only on Principal to Principal basis. Further it is to be noted that though the Complainant had alleged that he had constantly replaced the engine guard/bumper of his vehicle, has not produced any material evidence for having done so and had not proved any manufacturing defect in the product replaced. The 1^st Opposite Party being the dealer of the 2^nd Opposite Party, who had sold the Engine Guard/Bumper under Ex.A-2 and who had replaced the Engine Guard/Bumper on 10.12.2020, as the Engine Guard/Bumper was broken again on 17.12.2020, the 1^st Opposite Party had failed and avoided to replace the same in spite of Complainant’s repeated personal visits and in spite of receipt of Legal Notice dated 27.01.2021, Ex.A-6. Hence, it is clear that the 1^st Opposite Party had acted lethargically and negligently in replacing the Engine Guard/Bumper which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party. As the Complainant had not proved any manufacturing defect in the Engine Guard/Bumper manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the complaint as against the 2^nd Opposite Party stands dismissed. Accordingly Point no.1 is answered.    

POINTS NO 2 & 3

30.    As discussed and decided in Point No.1 as against the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,450/- towards cost of the Bumper purchased and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. And hence the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,450/- (Rupees Three Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only) towards cost of the Bumper purchased and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agonyalong with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant,  within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount of Rs.3,450/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

Complaint against 2^nd Opposite Party stands dismissed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 28^thof June 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                  B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                             MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	06.02.2020	Invoice for bike purchasing
Ex.A2	26.09.2020	Invoice for bumper purchasing
Ex.A3	08.11.2020	Complaint given by mail
Ex.A4	10.11.2020	Reply given by company through mail
Ex.A5	25.12.2020	Complaint given by mail
Ex.A6	27.01.2021	Legal notice sent to the Respondents with Acknowledgement card
Ex.A7	04.03.2021	Reply given by company after legal notice issued through mail

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

-NIL -

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT