Complaint filed on: 04-02-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 12-03-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.11/2020

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

T.L.Ullas Kumar

S/o. T.R.Lokesh,

Aged about 25 years,

R/o 1^st Cross, Jaipura,

Tumakuru City,

Karnataka State

(By Sri.H.P.Nataraju, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Manager,

Royal Enfield Bhagavathi Motors, PG-1, Maraluru Gram, Sy.No.73/2, Kunigal Road, Next to SSIT College,

Tumakuru.

2. The Manager,

Royal Enfield, No.624, Tiruvottiyur high Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai,

Tamilnadu State-600019

(OP No.1-by Sri.Sunil Kumar.H.N,

   Advocate)

(OP No.2- Exparte)

       ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the OPs to replace the defective Royal Enfield Motor Bike and deliver new conditioned Royal Enfield Motor Bike or otherwise pay the total amount of Rs.2,01,200=00 value of the Motor Bike.

2. The complainant has purchased Royal Enfield Motor Bike from the 1^st OP dealer of Royal Enfield Motor Bikes by paying Rs.2,01,200=00 and got delivery of the vehicle on 02-9-2019. The vehicle purchased by the complainant bearing registration No.KA06HF8888.

3. The complainant has got service of the Motor Bike on 11-10-2019 at the work shop of 1^st OP. Even after the service the complainant found problem in Shock Observers and Engine. The complainant has approached the 1^st OP and narrated the problems but the 1^st OP has refused to attend the repairs. Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal notice dated 18-11-2019 calling upon the OPs to replace the conditioned Motor Bike or in the alternative pay the value of its price a sum of Rs.2,01,200=00.

          4. The 1^st OP in response to notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant has purchased the Motor Bike on 31-8-2019 and took delivery on 02-9-2019. The complainant has approached for first free servicing on 11-10-2019. The 1^st OP has carried out the periodic service like replacing engine oil filter and general service. The complainant has not noted or narrated the problems in Shock Observers and Engine at the time of first free servicing done on the vehicle by this OP. It is the case of OP that as per the Royal Enfield owner’s manual, the complainant was required to do periodic maintenance service after every 5000kms or 6 months whichever is earlier. The vehicle was supposed to complete second free servicing in February, 2020. The complainant after the first free service never visited the service center for the second servicing. This OP is not aware of the alleged defect in the vehicle as such there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of this OP. There is no negligence on the part of OP since there is no fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by the OP in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service.          

          5. It is the further case of 1^st OP that in the Job card of first servicing, nowhere it has been mentioned that there was any defect in the engine. In the owner’s manual there is no stipulation or condition that the manufacturer will replace the new vehicle in case of any defective parts in the vehicle, Royal Enfield will replace or repair defective parts at their dealership and authorized service center free of charge within a period of two years/30,000 k.m from the date of sale, whichever is earlier. The warranty shall be applicable if all the four free services and five paid services are availed in the respective period/kilometer ranges as per the schedule in the owner’s manual from Royal Enfield Authorized Dealer/service center. During the warranty period Royal Enfield obligation shall be established limited to repairing/replacing the parts of motor cycle for free, only if the parts, on examination is deemed to have manufacturing defect. Defective parts which have replaced will become sole property of Royal Enfield. The complainant is not entitled to the relief of replacement of new vehicle or in alternative a sum of Rs.2,01,200=00. On the amongst other grounds, the 1^st OP asked to dismiss the complaint.       

          6. The OP No.2 despite the service of notice was proceeded exparte.

          7. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 documents. On behalf of 1^st OP that one Anshuman Kashyap, Deputy Manager of Royal Enfield, Gurugram filed affidavit evidence and produced Exs.R1 and R2.

          8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and 1^st Op and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)      Is complaint entitled to the relief sought for?

9. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the partly affirmative; 

Point No.2: In the partly affirmative

for the below;

REASONS

          10. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the Royal Enfield Motor Bike manufactured by the 2^nd OP is having manufacturing defect as such the complainant is entitled for replacement of new vehicle or in the alternative for return of the value of vehicle a sum of Rs.2,01,200=00. The 1^st OP has not disputed the purchase of Royal Enfield Motor Bike manufacture by 2^nd OP and its delivery on 02-9-2019 for payment of Rs.2,01,200=00 by the complainant. The contention of 1^st OP is that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant has not noted defects in the Motor Bike when he brought the vehicle for the first free service on 11-10-2019.

          11. The 1^st OP in the written version paragraph No.6 stated periodical maintenance of the complainant Motor Bike. This indicates that engine oil, engine oil filter elements, engine sump filter (oil retainer), spark plug, magnetic drain plug under gear box and secondary drain plug under crankshaft in crankcase right, HT leads for crack/damage and fuel hose & clip. The complainant has not produced job card issued by the OP at the time of first servicing. The OP has produced the job card which shows the details of first service of Motor Bike. If the complainant has reported problem in engine and Shock Observes he would have produced the job card of the first free servicing. The complainant except his allegations in the complaint and notice has not placed any material to show that he has complained of shock observations and engine either at the time of first free service or after the first service before issue of legal notice dated 18-11-2019.

12. The defense of OP is that according to owner’s manual there is no obligation on the part of manufacturer or dealer for replacement of the vehicle if there are defects in the parts of Motor Bike. The complainant produced Ex.P18 expert opinion dated 11-02-2020. The complainant got inspected the purchased Royal Enfield Motor Bike from the Head of the department, Department of Automobile Engineering Sri.Venkateshwara Polytechnic, Bannerghatta road, Bengaluru. This Polytechnic is aided and recognized by AICTE New Delhi and Government of Karnataka. The said vehicle was examined by the head of department of Automobile Engineering on 11-02-2020 and after inspection of the bike they found filing observations.

1. The front fork shock absorber leakage is observed.

2. Engine is making abnormal sound and louder than  

    normal.

3. Engine head gasket leakage is observed.

4. While driving the bike vibration of engine is

    observed after crossing the speed of 45 km.

          13. The head of department after inspection have given their conclusion that till date it has run 1,528 kms. For normal Bike running of 1,528 kms the above problems should not arise. Since bike is under warranty they are not suppose to dismantle the engine and pin point exact reason. Therefore, they have come to the conclusion the lapse of free delivery quality inspection may be the reason and there may be some manufacturing or assembly defect. 

14. The expert has not given clear opinion with regard to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The expert stated that they have not dismantled the engine and on assumption stated that there may be some manufacturing or assembly defect. The OP relied upon the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1  SCC 66 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The complainant has failed to establish the manufacturing defect or engine defect of the Motor Bike as it has already observed in the opinion given by expert vide Ex.P18 certificate.

15. The OP has not challenged the contents of Ex.P18 opinion given by the expert with regard to leakage in the front fork shock absorber, abnormal sound in engine, engine head gasket leakage and vibration of engine after crossing the speed of 45 km. Above opinion of expert is remained un challenged hence, this commission has to be accepted the opinion of expert. When the complaint has failed to prove the manufacturing defect or engine defect of the Motor Bike then he is not entitled for replacement of new vehicle or value of the Motor Bike. On the contrary the OP shall repair the parts as per observation made by expert in Ex.P18 certificate dated 11-02-2020. The complainant is not entitled for compensation as he has failed to take the vehicle for second or other free services or narrated the problems of Motor Bike. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed directing the OP No.1 and 2 shall attend the repairs of parts as observed by expert in Ex.P18 certificate dated 11-02-2020 within the thirty days from the date of order.

The complainant shall take the vehicle to the service center of 1^st OP for repairs of the observation made in Ex.P18 certificate dated 11-02-2020 within thirty days from the date of order.

The OP No.1 and 2 shall pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant within thirty days from the date of order otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 8% p.a from the date of default till its payment.