DATE OF DISPOSAL: 11.12.2023

PER:   SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties  (in short the o.ps ) and for redressal of their grievance before this commission.

2. The complainant is a self-employed person and for personal purpose, purchased a Royal Enfield Motor cycle Model of Classic 350 (Silver) bearing Chassis No. ME3U3S5CIGL704913 and Model No. 80060 from the O.P.No.1 for payment of Rs.1,48,800/- on 30.10.2016 vide Receipt No. 113 with two years warranty. The O.P.No.1 is the authorized distributor-cum-authorized service centre and O.P.No.2 is the Manufacturer. Just after normal use for four months from the date of purchase, the engine of said Motor cycle creates a different type of sound as it likes a sound of diesel auto which dissatisfied the complainant and for which, the complainant faced public ridicule each and every time. The complainant reported the matter but the O.P.No.1 did not taken any care to resolve the matter and when the complainant wants to meet with the proprietor, the staff of the O.P.No.2 did not allow the complainant to enter into their premises. To correct the said sound of engine, the O.P.No.1 has provided four numbers of free services. During the said free services, the O.P.No.1 has demanded and taken money from the complainant each time to replace the some small parts during the warranty period and the complainant has paid around Rs.200/- but the O.P.No.1 did not choose to issue bills accordingly and three numbers of paid services on 12.02.2018, 20.07.2018 are done during the warranty period but job sheet of services not issued to the complainant at all. The O.P.No.1 has not issued bill of paid services done on 20.07.2018. Sounding differently from engine of the said vehicle after several repairs with O.P.No.1, is suffering from the manufacturing defects in the engine of the motor cycle in question. Frequently visiting for repair of motor cycle for same complaint is different services and it proves that, said motor cycle is having manufacturing defect and it should be replaced with new one on priority basis.In referring to warranty terms and conditions of O.Ps, it clearly discloses that, “Royal Enfield warrants its motorcycle to be free from manufacturing and material defect under normal use subject to following conditions—RE will replace or repair defective part at their dealerships and authorized service centre, free of charges within a period of 24 months or 20,000 Kms from the date of sale, whichever earlier”. Since the date of defect, the complainant visited in person to the O.P.No.1 place and complaint online customer care of O.P.No.2 but no satisfied services rendered till date by the O.Ps and the complainant demanded to the O.Ps that, if the defect of the vehicle could not be removed then replace the same with new one but the O.Ps kept silence over the offer also. By these acts of both the O.Ps speaks deficient services and unfair trade practice. As a result, the complainant is suffering irreparably mentally, physically and financially. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the manufacturing defective motor cycle of the complainant with new model on same price, compensation of Rs.48,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.4800/- in the best interest of justice.

3. The O.Ps filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the complainant purchased the alleged motor cycle on dated 30.10.2016 from O.P.No.1. After purchase he took delivery of the said motor cycle and plied it on the road and satisfied with the said motor cycle in total. At that time he neither complained regarding the alleged engine sound. After plying 502 K.Ms he brought it to the O.P.No.1 on dated 12.12.2016 for its 1^st free servicing. On that day the O.P.No.1 successfully carried out all the jobs as complained by the complainant i.e. general checkup, engine oil replace, oil filter replace, oil leak (engine) and clutch checkup and costs Rs.804/- towards engine oil and oil filter with “o ring kit” was charge which was paid by the complainant. On the same day the alleged motor cycle was delivered to the complainant. At the time of taking delivery of the said motor cycle, the complainantreceived the motor cycle duly repaired to his entire satisfaction and signed in the customer satisfaction index as excellent. At that time he had not complained regarding the alleged sound from the engine to the O.P.No.1. Subsequently, after plying the alleged motor cycle 2,944 Kms, the complainant brought it on dated 12.08.2017 for free services to the O.P.No.1 for the followingcheckup as per his voice i.e. general checkup, engine and filtercheckup, Tuppet sound checkup for section jaw checkup and both wheel checkup which this O.P. successfully carried out and accordingly charges towards costs of engine oil, oil filter with “o ring kit” were paid by the complainant. There was no complaint regarding the alleged engine sound by the complainant during servicing on that date. On the said day the alleged motor cycle was delivered to the complainant. At the time of delivery of the said motor cycle, the complainant acknowledged it with due signature stating that all the jobs carried out and the repair charges have been explained to him and received the motor cycle duly repaired to his entire satisfaction. After plying the alleged motor cycle 3,815 Kms, the complainant brought it on dated 08.11.2017 for paid services to the O.P.No.1 for the following checkup as per his voice i.e. general checkup and tappet sound checkup which O.P.No.1 successfully carried out and accordingly charges towards engine oil and oil filter with o ring kit were paid by the complainant. On the said date also there was no complaint regarding the alleged engine sound by the complainant. On the same day the alleged motor cycle was delivered to the complainant. At the time of delivery of the said motor cycle the complainantacknowledged it with due signature stating that all the jobs carried out and the repair charges have been explained to him and received the motor cycle duly repaired to his entire satisfaction. In the customer index he has signed as excellent on the rate o in the process of payment of service bill and good in cleanliness of the bike when delivered after service/ repairs and others as neither good nor poor. After plying the alleged motor cycle 4,586 Kms, the complainant brought it on dated 12.02.2018 for paid services to the O.P.No.1 for the following checkup as per his voice i.e. general checkup and magnate side oil leakages which the O.P. No.1 successfully carried out and accordingly charges towards service was paid by the complainant. On the said date also there was no complaint regarding the alleged engine sound by the complainant. At the time of delivery of the said motor cycle, the complainant acknowledged it with due signature stating that all the jobs carried out and the repair charges have been explained to him and received the motor cycle duly repaired to his entire satisfaction. In the customer index he has signed as excellent on the rate in all and good in process of filing up the job card and process of payment of service bill and cleanliness of the bike when delivered after service/repairs. After plying the alleged motor cycle 5,887 K.Ms the complainant brought it on dated 18.07.2018 for paid service to the O.P.No.1 for the following checkup as per his voice i.e. engine noise checkup. The O.P.No.1 completely checked up the motorcycle and changed the oil filter with ‘o ring kit’ oil suction filter Assy’ ‘o ring oil pump’ engine oil and accordingly charges towards costs of the same were paid by the complainant. At the time of delivery of the said motor cycle, the complainant acknowledged it with due signature stating that all the jobs carried out and the repair charges have been explained to him and received the motor cycle duly repaired to his entire satisfaction and also signed in thecustomers satisfaction index and customer satisfaction form wherein has stated that tests ride ½ K.M was taken and where have no engine noise. The engine of the alleged motor cycle never creates a different type of sound likes a sound of diesel auto. The complainant purchased the alleged motor cycle on dated 30.10.2016. The complainant brought the alleged motor cycle to the O.P.No.1 on dated 18.07.2018 with a complain of engine noise. After due checkup the O.P. found that there was no engine noise as alleged and the engine was having the sound of a “Royal Enfield” which it ought to have. At the time of delivery of the said motor cycle, the complainant acknowledged it with due signature stating that all the jobs carried out and the repair charges have been explained to him and received the motor cycle duly repaired to his entire satisfaction and also signed in the customers satisfaction index and customer satisfaction form wherein he has stated that test ride ½ K.Ms was taken and there have no engine noise. In view of the previous services stated above and documents filed thereof wherein the complainant acknowledged the motor cycle from O.P.No.1 to his entire satisfaction establishes that the story of engine sound like a sound of diesel auto is absolutely false and baseless. There is neither any manufacturing defect in the motor cycle nor anybody who had purchased the “Royal Enfield” have ever complained any manufacturing defect in the said motor cycle much less the alleg4ed defect. The complainant has brought such type of false allegation and filed this complaint only to harass the O.Ps and to get unlawful gain. The complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for nor the O.Ps are liable to satisfy the same. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case.

4. On the date of hearing both parties are found absent. We perused the complaint petition, written version and documents available in the case record. The complainant purchased the alleged motor cycle on dated 30.10.2016. The complainant brought the alleged motor cycle to the O.P.No.1 on dated 18.07.2018 with a complaint of engine noise. After due checkup the O.P. found that there was no engine noise as alleged and the engine was having the sound of a “Royal Enfield” which it ought to have. At the time of delivery of the said motor cycle, the complainant acknowledged it with due signature stating that all the jobs carried out and the repair charges have been explained to him and received the motor cycle duly repaired to his entire satisfaction and also signed in the customers satisfaction index and customer satisfaction form wherein he has stated that test ride ½ K.Ms was taken and there have no engine noise. Further, it reveals that, at the time of free services also, the complainant has not complaint about noise in engine of RE. We do not found any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

In the result we dismissed the case. No order as to cost and compensation.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from www.confonet.nic.in to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 11.12.2023