KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.25/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 30.8.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Palakkad in OP 363/2000 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. Royal Enfield Motors P.B.No.5284, thiruvattiyur, High Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. : APPELLANTS 2. M/s Kavitha Arts Agencies, XII/1300, Shobha TSM Complex, R.S Road, Palakkad. (By Adv. G.S.Kalkura) Vs. Symon George, : RESPONDENT Kathirumolel House, Payyanadam.P.O., Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Manufacturer and dealer of Royal Enfield Motor Cycles who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8037/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.800/-as costs to the complainant vide order in OP 363/2000 of CDRF, Palakkad. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Enfield Diesel Bullet Motor cycle purchased by him for travelling in his estate in the hilly area for consideration of Rs.50300/- was having frequent mechanical problems that started immediately after a week of purchase. Within the free service period itself repairs had to be done 11 times. The 2nd opposite party have also collected money from the complainant towards the cost of repairs. At last he has spent a sum of Rs.2713/-. He has claimed a sum of Rs.32823/- towards expenses and compensation. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that the warranty period was for six months or 8000 k.ms. whichever is earlier. The vehicle was purchased on 8.9.98, and the warranty period expired on 8.3.99. There was no problems during the warranty period. The 3rd service was over on 21.12.98 after running 5600 k.ms. As a good will gesture on the complaint that the engine is having unusual sound, the same was also set right on 20.3.99 and no charges were levied. The vehicle is used roughly resulting in more wear and tear. After the warranty period, subsequent repairs due to wear and tear opposite parties had charged the complainant which he did not like and hence filed the complaint. It is asserted that there is no manufacturing defects. 4. The evidence adduced consisted the proof affidavits, answers to questionnaire, Exts.A1 to A9, B1 to B14 and Ext.C1. 5. We find that the Commissioner inspected the vehicle on 27.6.02 and found the speedometer reading as 36222 It is mentioned that the complainant was riding the motor cycle regularly and that the engine started with a single kick. The Commissioner travelled for about 10 k.ms covering different terrains. In the ground level the vehicle was driven at the speed of 65 k.m./hr. According to him the run was smooth. The Commissioner was observed that if the repairs had to be done as alleged by the complainant within 10000 k.ms. involving the opening of the engine and replacing parts, it has got some manufacturing defects. It is the case of the complainant that the Commissioner inspected the vehicle at a time after the repairs were done. As contented by the counsel for the appellant the report of the Commissioner is not at all helpful to support the case of the complainant. We find that the complaint has been filed after about two years of purchase . No notice to the manufacturer or dealer preceded the filing of the complaint. It is also the admitted case of the complainant that the vehicle was being driven in a hilly terrain. As already noted the speedo meter reading when the Commissioner examined was 36222. It is also the evidence of the Commissioner that vehicle is in proper condition when he inspected the same. In the circumstances we find that it cannot be held that the expenses incurred for repairs reflected manufacturing defects. We cannot agree with the view of the Forum that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects. In the result the order of the Forum is setaside.. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
