BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1854/2018

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Mr.Tony Mari Raj,

S/o Late Arokiaswamy,

Aged about 47 years,

R/at No.58, 8^th Cross,

T.C.Palya, K.R.Puram,

(Rep by Sri.J.Prabakar, Adv)

V/s

The Manager,

Royal Enfield,

No.Old No.3, New No.9,

Devi Krupa, Near Fashion Folks,

Besant Avenue Road,

Adayar,

Chennai-600020.                     …….      OPPOSITE PARTY-1

The Manager,

Authorized Dealer of Royal Enfield,

CVS motors,

No.812, 5^th ‘A’ Cross,

HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar,

The Manager,

Royal Enfield CVS Motors Service Centre,

No.5, 11^th Main,

Horamavu Main Road,

Banaswadi Beside HDFC Bank,

(Opposite party no.1 to 3 Rep by Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa, Adv)

******

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 seeking a relief of direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,83,700/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards rendering deficiency in service together  with interest at 21% p.a.

 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased Royal Enfield Motor Bike bearing No.KA 03 JR 6302, chassis No.ME3U3S5C1JB650182, Engine No.U3S5C1JB319132 from opposite party no.2, manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for Rs.1,83,700/- on 09.03.2019.   Motor bike was delivered to complainant on 10.03.2018.  After purchasing the bike from opposite party no.2, the complainant regularly serviced with the opposite party no.3.  The complainant availed third free service on 07.09.2018 by paying Rs.1,326/- to opposite party no.3.  The complainant purchased vehicle from opposite party no.2 by paying Rs.1,83,700/- including registration charges and extra fitting charges for Rs.7,000/-. 

 3. On15.09.2018 the alleged motor bike starts gave trouble while proceeding the complainant to his house from M.G.Road.   Engine was raising itself and slowing down.  After due observation found that silencer turned into brownish colour.  Same is reported to opposite party no.3 next day.  The opposite party no.3 suggested to got the vehicle on Monday 17.09.2018 and once again on 20.09.2018.  After lapse of one week the complainant received sms message from opposite party no.3 service centre requesting him to took back the vehicle and problem was resolved.  Thereafter, the complainant asked one Mr.Elangovan who authorized person for opposite party no.3 about reason why the vehicle kept for one week to repair.  He replied that coil under the engine bore had been burnt down and same was replaced with new coil by opening the engine and silencer was not replaced.  The complainant asked about not replacement of silencer and the said authorized person replied that this issue for new silencer has been resolved by the opposite party no.1 by replacing the new one.  At that time, the vehicle in question was runs about 1200 KM only, and question of possibility of coil burns was very meagre.  Due to opening of the engine and coil changed value of the vehicle is lowered about Rs.50,000/- .  The complainant had not got satisfactory answer for opening of the engine.  Hence, the complainant prays for Rs.1,83,700/- and extra fitting charges of Rs.7,000/- and service charge of Rs.1,326/- over all Rs.1,92,026/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, travel expenses each other. The Legal Notice was sent to opposite parties on 01.10.2018, same is received by the opposite parties.  Hence, this complaint for recovery of the value of the vehicle along with compensation.

4. After service of notice the opposite parties had appeared on 04.01.2019 and filed version on 22.02.2019 along with power of attorney of one Mr.Lalith Mallik, Chief Financier Officer, and resisted the claim of the complainant by saying the complaint was barred by limitation.  The alleged bike was no more in its warranty period and the vehicle runs over 10,000 KM, hence the opposite parties cannot be held liable for problems arose in the bike after lapse of warranty period, and that there is no cause of action, further the company is ISO 9001 certified company having modern manufacturing practices like cellular layouts, statistical process controls and flexible manufacturing systems, and obtained ISO 14001 certificate being implemented and ensured the quality levels are kept on ever raising place. The opposite party company had maintained stringent quality standards. Hence there is no question of manufacturing defects with regard to the complainant bike.  Moreover, during the warranty period only defective parts of the vehicle can be repaired or replaced free of costs and a new vehicle cannot be issued to the customer.  That the obligation of the opposite party no.1 was only limited to repairing, replacing defective parts of the vehicle with free of cost, and also denied the claim of the complainant. 

5. To substantiate the claim of the complainant that the complainant had filed his affidavit along with EX.1 to P18 i.e., the amount paid towards purchase of vehicle, service invoices, insurance copy, office copy of the legal notice along with postal receipt and acknowledgement. 

6. That the opposite parties also reiterated their case by affidavit and resisted the claim of the complainant.  

7. We heard the arguments from both parties and both parties have filed written arguments.

        8. The points that would arise for determination are here as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged bike is suffering from manufacturing defect ?

2. Whether the opposite parties prove that the alleged bike is not in warranty period?

3. Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency of service by the opposite parties ?

iii) What order ?

  9.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In Affirmative

Point No.2 :  Negative

Point No.3 :  In affirmative

Point No.4 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

10. POINT NO.1 to 3:-  The point No.1 to 3 are having common answers and discussed together.  On perusal of the pleadings and documents of both the parties, it was undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased Royal Enfield Motor Bike bearing No.KA 03 JR 6302, chassis No.ME3U3S5C1JB650182, Engine No.U3S5C1JB319132 from opposite party no.2 manufactured by the opposite party no.1 by paying Rs.1,83,700/- on 09.03.2018.  Further it was also undisputed fact that the complainant was serviced regularly from opposite party no.3 service center authorized by the opposite party no.1.  Third service of the bike was held on 07.09.2018.  For that the complainant has paid Rs.1,326/- to opposite party no.3.

11. As per allegation of the complaint, after availing third service by the opposite party no.3 the alleged bike started to gave trouble on 15.09.2018 while the complainant proceeding to his house from M.G.Road.  The engine was raising itself and slowing down automatically.  From this defect of the motor bike the complainant faced very difficult situation and however reached the home with lot of strain.  The next day i.e., on 16.09.2018 after due observation found that the silencer of the alleged bike was turned into brownish colour.  This fact was reported to opposite party no.3 on the same day, and opposite party no.3 suggested to bought motor bike on Monday i.e., 17.09.2018 and also on 18.09.2018.  As per instruction of the opposite party no.3 that the complainant handed over the bike to the opposite party no.3, service station on 18.09.2018 as per EX.P17.  After lapse of one week the complainant got sms message from opposite party no.3 to take back of his vehicle.  As per request of opposite party no.3, the complainant visited the opposite party no.3 service center and asked opposite party no.3 authorized person Mr.Elangovan about the reasons and difficulties occurred to his motor bike.  The complainant got answer from Mr.Elangvan that the coil under the bore was burnt down.  Hence, the same is replaced with new coil by opening the engine of the bike and silencer was sent to opposite party no.1 for replacement and when opposite party no.1 supplied new silencer to opposite party no.3 then it will be replaced.  The opposite party no.3 open the sealed engine without consent of the complainant and replaced the coil.  From this act of opposite party no.3 valuation of the bike was decreased.  Moreover, at that time the alleged bike runs only 1292 KM.  It is highly impossible to burns down coil in the bore of the motor bike when it is runs only 1292 KM, unless it has a manufacturing defect.  Hence the complainant refused to take back his bike and from that date the motor bike is in custody of opposite party no.3 service centre.  The opposite party no.3 opened seal of the engine without any intimation nor without his consent and replaced the coil under bore.  From this act of opposite party no.3 naturally decreases the value of the motor bike if it is sell to any other person.  Naturally any motor bike having manufacturing defect nobody came forward to purchase that bike.  In addition to that the complainant was practicing advocate and he has to travel his bread earning profession.  For that he has to travel by bus or in auto rickshaw.  For that he had borne his earnings same is caused to him economic losses.  This would amounts to mental agony and huge losses to the complainant. 

12. For substantiate the complainant case that the complainant had filed EX.P1 to P18. EX.P1 to P6 invoices shows the complainant had paid Rs.1,83,700/- towards purchase and registration of motor bike.  Ex.P8 & P9 shows the complainant has paid Rs.1,180/- and Rs.1,326/- towards services charges.  EX.P9 shows Rs.28,847/- has paid towards registration charges.  EX.P10 is the insurance certificate duly issued by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.  EX.P11 invoice given by the opposite party no.2, EX.12 is the office copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties.  EX.P13 to P16 are postal receipts and acknowledgement.  EX.P17 shows the job card acknowledgment given by opposite party no.3 which is to substantiate the alleged bike is in custody of opposite party no.3.

13. The opposite party no.1 to 3 not produced any  document except the Xerox copy of power of attorney alleged to be executed by one Mr.Lalit Mallik, CFO, Eicher Motors Limited.  It is the specific defense of the opposite party’s that the alleged bike in question is not in the warranty period and runs over morethan 10,000 Kms.  On the other hand, the complainant produced the EX.P8 lost service invoice dt.07.09.2018 shows the bike was runs only 1007 Kms.  No documents was produced by opposite party’s to discard this fact, and also it substantiate that the complainant regularly serviced his motor bike as per guidelines of opposite party’s manual.  Even in spite of filing of this complaint that the opposite party’s miserably failed to explain why the bike started to gave trouble, why coil was burned much earlier and why silencer turned brownish in colour and why it was not replaced.  Why the opposite party’s not informed the defect of the bike to the complainant.  The opposite party’s opted for explaining their manufacturing process in their version, but not established anything about their defence, specifically towards defect of the bike.

14. The complainant is clearly established his case and highlight the adequate shortage of deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party.  Hence, we answers point No.1 & 3 in affirmative and point No.2 in negative.

15.  POINT NO.4:- The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.1,83,700/- value of the bike together with registration charges along with interest @ 21% p.a.   The complainant has entitled to Rs.1,83,700/- value of the bike along with service charges of Rs.2,506/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint, i.e., from 23.11.2018.  With regard to the expenses borne by the complainant towards bus and auto rickshaw expenses no document produced by the complainant.   Hence, we rejected the claim of compensation by the complainant.  In addition to compensation the complainant is entitled Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.  Hence, we answer point No.4 is accordingly.
16. In view of the discussion made above by exercising the power u/s 39 of Consumers Protection Act 2019, we proceed to pass the following order;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,86,206/- (1,83,700/- + 2,506/-) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 23.11.2018, till realization.

Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost. 

In case, the opposite parties fail to pay the above said amount of Rs.20,000/- within 30 days, it carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization. 

The opposite parties are entitled to retain the alleged motor bike.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 13^th day of April, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.Tony Maria Raj, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Copy of sales enquiry and bookings form issued by CVS Motors.
2. Original order booking form dt.03.03.2018 vide order No.BKNG6517171802174 issued by CVS Motors.
3. Original booking advance receipt voucher, dt.03.03.2018 vide receipt No.BRC651717802173 issued by CVS Motors.
4. Original receipt dt.06.03.2018 No.IRCT6517171805466 issued by CVS Motors.
5. Original receipt dt.06.03.2018 No.IRCT6517171805467 issued by CVS Motors.
6. Original receipt dt.09.03.2018 No.IRCT6517171805506 issued by CVS Motors.
7. Original tax invoice-service certificate dt.24.04.2018 bearing Invoice No.SLI6517181901013, Job card No.RJC6517181901033 issued by CVS Motors.
8. Original tax invoice-service certificate dt.07.09.2018 bearing Invoice No.SLI6517181906483, Job card No.RJC6517181906829 issued by CVS Motors.
9. Original on-line E-payment receipt of transport Department, Government of Karnataka, dt.23.04.2018 challan No.EP001922387.
10. Original Motor Two Wheeler Certificate cum police No.3005/RF/12586707/00/000 dt.10.03.2018 issued by ICICI Lombard General insurance Company Limited.
11. Original tax invoice certificate dt.09.03.2018, bearing Invoice No.INV6517171802152 issued by CVS Motors.
12. Xerox copy of the legal notice dt.01.10.2018.
13. Original postal receipts four in number.
14. Three postal acknowledgements.
15. Original Job card.
16. Copy of RC card.

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

 Sri.Rajesh K, Authorized Signatory of opposite party-No.1 company has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•