BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 23/06/2011

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 333/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Bullet Standard 350 bike on 31-08-2010 from the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant duly serviced the vehicle, when the vehicle had plied upto 500 Kms., 3000 Kms., 6000 Kms. and 9000 Kms. respectively. Now, the bike suffers from the following defects :-

1. Abnormal vibration of the Engine, handle and all body of the motor cycle while riding.

2. Abnormal sound from the engine.

3. Non-functioning of the shock absorbers.

4. Engine cover, chase, mudguard side, handle and other nuts etc. are rusting and other tangible and intangible defects.

The complainant had approached the 3^rd opposite party on 13 occasions for curing the defects of the vehicle. But the 3^rd opposite party failed to rectify the same. The defects were caused within a year from the date of purchase. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice dated 30-04-2011 to the opposite parties highlighting his grievances. The 2^nd opposite party alone sent a reply stating untenable contentions. During the proceedings in this Forum, the opposite parties agreed to provide one year additional warranty to the vehicle. But subsequently, they went back on their promise. The vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defects and so the complainant is entitled either to get replacement of the vehicle or to get refund of its price together with a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

The opposite parties had done in their capacity to attend to the complaints of the complainant. During services availed by the complainant many parts, which were not covered by warranty policy of the company were replaced. No abnormalities were noted during any of the services on the complainant's bike. The motor bike purchased by the complainant was of superior quality at the time of delivery. The complainant though making these averments is still using the same for his daily travel. The vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as sought for in the complaint.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. The expert commissioner was examined as PW2 and his report was marked as Ext. C1. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Exts. B1 to B10 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the vehicle or to get refund of its price?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- The complainant purchased a Bullet 350 Bike from the 3^rd opposite party at a price of Rs. 85,234/-, which was manufactured by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, evidenced by Ext. A1 dispatch advice cum invoice. According to the complainant, time and again, he had to approach the 3^rd opposite party to repair the recurring defects of the vehicle. It is stated that the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects of the vehicle, since the vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. Per contra, the opposite parties maintain that the vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect and as and when the complainant approached the opposite parties to repair the minor defects of the bike, they duly attended to the same and rectified them.

6. During the proceedings in this Forum, at the instance of the complainant, an expert commissioner was appointed to examine and submit a report in this Forum. The expert commissioner was examined as PW2 and his report was marked as Ext. C1. Ext. C1 report reads as follows :-

“Point No. (i)

I personally examined motor cycle bearing No. KL 32 B 859 bearing Engine No. U3K5C0AH026979, Chassis No. ME3U3K5C0AH026979, 2010 model. I drove the vehicle at various speeds. There was an abnormal vibration from the engine, handle and its body which progressively increased with speed of the vehicle.

Point No. (ii) :-

Even while the vehicle was stationery, with the engine working, I noticed abnormal sound from the engine.

Point No. (iii) :-

On inspection the rear shock absorbers of the motor cycle were not working properly and hence defective.

Point No. (iv) :-

On inspection at certain places of the chassis, mudguard side, handle and nuts, crash guard were seen rusted.

Point No. (v) :-

No tangible defects other than those mentioned above were noticed.

Point No. (vi) :-

Brake light of the motor cycle was found not working for want of brake light switch.”

7. PW2 deposed before the Forum that the defects noted in Ext. C1 can be rectified by repairs and replacement of the parts. According to PW2, the abnormal vibration of the engine can be rectified by overhauling of the engine and replacement of the engine parts thereto. He stated that both the rear back shock absorbers are to be replaced and the rusting as stated in Ext. C1 can be rectified by plate. Further, he deposed that the defect of the brake light can be rectified by replacing the switch. It is pertinent to note that PW2 does not have a case that the vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. Exts. B1 to B7 job cards would show that the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the recurring defects of the vehicle rectified during the warranty period as stated in Ext. A3 warranty conditions. Admittedly, the opposite parties duly attended to the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Another (2006) 4 SCC 644, held that if the defects of the vehicle can be rectified by replacement of the parts, there is no point in replacement of the vehicle as such. The finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely applies in this case. The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective parts as observed by the expert commissioner.

8. Point No. ii. :- The complainant had to run from pillar to post to get his grievances redressed. From the available evidence, it can be seen that the opposite parties did not take their earnest efforts to redress the grievances of the complainant, which prompted him to knock at the doors of this Forum by spending his precious time and money. Compensation and costs of the proceedings are called for. We fix it at Rs. 5,000/-.

9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally repair the vehicle of the complainant in the following manner :

1. Overhaul the engine of the bike and replace the defective parts connected thereto.

2. Replace the rear shock absorbers.

3. Cure the defect of rusting by plate the parts as stated in point No. iv. in Ext. C1.

4. Replace the switch of the brake light.

ii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally provide one year fresh warranty for the above works.

iii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings for the reasons stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12. p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========