Date of Filing : 18.12.2019
Date of Disposal: 12.07.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.08/2020
THIS TUESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2022
Mr.S.Gnanam, S/o.M.Subramaniam,
No.11, 5th Cross Street, Thirumal Nagar,
Poonamallee, Chennai -600 056. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager/Authorised Officer,
Royal Enfield,
A Unit of Eicher Group Motors Limited,
No.624, Tiruvottiyur High Road,
Chennai – 600 019.
2.The Authorised Officer,
Aravinduja Motors Private Limited,
105, Kamala Gardens, Mount Poonamallee Road,
Kattupakkam, Chennai -600 056. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 30.06.2022 and hearing argument of PIP/Complainant and the opposite parties set exparte and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective vehicle and seeking direction to direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new branded vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony cuased to the complainant by the opposite parties due to deficiency in service.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The crux of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a Royal Enfield classic 350 Dual-ABS, bearing Registration No.TN-12-AC-6736 vehicle on 06.03.2019 from the opposite party for Rs.2,07,850/- and the same was delivered on 22.03.2019. On the 2nd day of delivery itself it is found that there was some defect in the painting and the same was informed to the dealer who rectified it. After a month, the left side bottom of the fuel tank paint chipped of which was duly informed to the customer care and also the front mud guard of the vehicle got paint problem which shows the poor quality of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant insisted for replacement of the vehicle of good quality and standard. The opposite party after a long struggle accepted to repaint the fuel tank only and took the vehicle on 30.05.2019 and gave the vehicle delivery on 12.06.2019 to the complainant.
The next day when the son of the complainant took the vehicle for his personal work it got suddenly stopped and the fuel tap of the vehicle started draining down from the tank and switched of the fuel tank and immediately contacted the dealer who informed that the Road Side Assistance will pick the vehicle and drop it in the nearby service station. After two hours of waiting the Road Side Assistance picked up the vehicle and was given to one Velavan Motors Private Limited Service Centre and the same was serviced and the bill amount of Rs.177/- was collected from the complainant.
After three months when the complainant’s son took the vehicle it got again stopped and the Road Side Assistance was called for help who after inspecting the vehicle informed that the battery is dead and as advised by them the complainant took the vehicle to the nearby service station Aravinduja Motors Private Limited, who informed that they will inspect the vehicle and on next day informed that there was some problem in the rectifier and the battery and the same would be resolved immediately. But only on 13.11.2019 the complainant’s son took back the vehicle after paying Rs.265/- though the vehicle was under warranty period.
After 12 days again the vehicle got suddenly stopped and the same was informed to the Road Side Assistance and they on inspecting the vehicle informed that the battery is dead. When the vehicle was taken to the nearest service station by the complainant at Aravinduja Motors private Limited that they told it will take 5 to 7 days to replace the battery and the complainant got tensed and filed a complaint before the Consumer Cell against the manufacturer and dealer for replacement of the vehicle. On the next day the Dealer informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery and also it is informed that if the vehicle was not taken delivery the vehicle parking charges would be imposed mandatorily.
The Royal Enfield support team called the complainant and enquired about the issues. The complainant sought for replacement of the vehicle with them but they refused and said that it is not their mode of policy. Thus contending that the vehicle delivered to the complainant was of poor quality, aggrieved, the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.
On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A15. In spite of sufficient opportunities the opposite parties did not appear and they were set ex-parte on 04.03.2020 and 04.12.2020 respectively.
Points for consideration:
1) Whether the complainant is successful in proving that the vehicle purchased by him suffers with manufacturing defects even in the absence of any expert evidence?
2) If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1&2:
On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations of manufacturing defects in the new vehicle purchased by him from the opposite party;
The booking advance receipt for payment of Rs.5,000/- dated 06.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
The receipt issued by the opposite party for payment of Rs.49,850/- dated 18.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
The invoice No.INV5291181901169 dated 18.03.2019 for the vehicle cost of Rs.1,47,745/- was marked as Ex.A3;
The job card acknowledgement issued by the opposite party dated 30.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;
The front mud guard picture of the vehicle at the time of delivery was marked as Ex.A5;
The photographs of paint chip in the vehicle was marked as Ex.A6;
The acknowledgements from the Road Side Assistance were marked as Ex.A7;
The invoice issued by the opposite party for the service provided for the vehicle i.e. CARBURATOR CLEANING AND TUNING-UCE for Rs.177/- was marked as Ex.A8 and other invoices dated 12.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 were marked as Ex.A9 & Ex.A10;
The acknowledgement for letting the vehicle to the service station on various dates were marked as Ex.A11;
Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant that the vehicle was ready for delivery after service dated 02.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A12;
Email communication made by the complainant to the opposite party seeking for replacement of the vehicle as the vehicle delivered to him was with manufacturing defects was marked as Ex.A13;
The reply email sent by the opposite party for acknowledging the registration of the complaint by the complainant seeking for new vehicle was marked as Ex.A14;
The email communication dated 02.12.2019 made by the opposite party to the complainant informing him to take delivery of the vehicle or in alternative for imposing parking charges on the vehicle was marked as Ex.A15;
Heard the arguments advanced by the complainant/party in person. It is the main grievances of the complainant that though he had purchased a new vehicle at huge cost he could not enjoy the same due to the fact that the vehicle possesses manufacturing defects and resultantly got stopped suddenly causing huge mental agony and hardship to him and his two sons. Hence the complainant sought for replacement of the vehicle with a brand new vehicle and for compensation for the suffering he had undergone by the defective vehicle.
At this juncture a question arises before this Commission as to whether the alleged manufacturing defects of the vehicle could be successfully proved by the complainant without the production of any expert evidence. As we have gone through critically all the documents produced by the complainant we could see that Ex.A8, Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 amply shows that the vehicle was often taken to the service station for various issues including CARBURATOR CLEANING AND TUNING-UCE and for other allied services and every time the complainant had paid for the service except on few occasions. In such situation, the defect of the vehicle was evidently by the job cards produced by the complainant. Hence, this commission is of the view that the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitor’ will apply and no expert evidence was required for proving the manufacturing defects of the vehicle. Our view is fortified by a various decisions by Apex Court & NCDRC and one such decision is rendered by the National Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission in Tata Motors Limited Vs Navin Nishchal and another dated 07.08.2012 wherein it was held that
“It is clear that reference to an appropriate laboratory (or, expert) for determination of defects in goods is not entirely mandatory. In this case, based on the admitted evidence that the complainant was required to take his newly purchased car to the workshops of the opposite parties repeatedly practically every month the District Forum specifically observed
Counsel for the OP submitted that there is no expert opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In our view no expert opinion is required in the circumstances of the case as noted above. The vehicle did not run smoothly even for a month and within two months of the purchase it was taken to the workshop of the OPs with complaints of high consumption oil and in less than four months started emitting excessive smoke. The car had to be taken to the workshop of the OPs almost every month with one problem or the other and one problem, which continued persisting is high consumption of engine oil and emission of smoke impels us to the inference that there is some manufacturing defect which is beyond rectification.”
Thus, there is no impediment for this Commission to arrive at a conclusion that the vehicle delivered to the complainant as a brand new vehicle suffers with inherent manufacturing defects. Hence we hold that the complainant was successful in proving that the vehicle was having inherent manufacturing defects and that the opposite parties had committed negligent and deficiency in service in delivering the vehicle to the complainant as the complainant could not use the brand new vehicle without any hindrance though he purchased it for a huge amount. Hence, we are of the view that he should be compensated adequately along with replacement of the defective vehicle with a new brand vehicle of the same specification.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties
a)to replace the defective vehicle Royal Enfield classic 350 Dual – ABS with a new brand vehicle with same model within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 12th day of July 2022
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 06.03.2019 booking advance receipt Xerox
Ex.A2 18.03.2019 The receipt issued by the opposite party for payment of Rs.49,850/- Xerox
Ex.A3 18.03.2019 The invoice No.INV5291181901169 dated 18.03.2019 for the vehicle cost of Rs.1,47,745/- Xerox
Ex.A4 30.05.2019 The job card acknowledgement issued by the opposite party Xerox
Ex.A5 .............. The front mud guard of the vehicle at the time of delivery Xerox
Ex.A6 ............. The photographs of paint chip in the vehicle Xerox
Ex.A7 ............. The acknowledgement from the road side assistance Xerox
Ex.A8 13.06.2019 The invoice issued by the opposite party for the service Xerox
Ex.A9 12.11.2019 Invoice Xerox
Ex.A10 14.11.2019 invoice Xerox
Ex.A11 ........... The acknowledgement for letting the vehicle to the service station Xerox
Ex.A12 02.12.2019 Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant Xerox
Ex.A13 28.11.2019 Email communication made by the complainant to the opposite party Xerox
Ex.A14 28.11.2019 The reply email sent by the opposite party for acknowledging the registration of the complaint Xerox
Ex.A15 02.12.2019 The email communication Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party;
Nil
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
