DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th  day of February  2014 

Present:  Smt.Seena.H.  President

              Smt.Shini.P.R. Member

              Smt.Suma.K.P. Member        

CC No.33/2013

Arul Babu,

S/o.Ramakrishnan Embrathri,

Moothedath House,

Erattakulam Road,

Nallepully, Palakkad

(By Adv.N.Rajesh)                                        -                  Complainant

        Vs 

1.The Proprietor,

   Prince Motors, BOC Road,

   Palakkad – 678 014

2.Managing Director,

   Royal Enfield, Thiruvattiyur,

   High Road, Thiruvattiyur,

   Chennai – 600 019                                               -                  Opposite party

(By Adv.Menon & Pai)

 O R D E R

Order by Smt.SHINY.P.R. MEMBER.

The complainant has purchased  a Royal Enfield Classic Motor Cycle on 24/1/12  from the 1^st opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.1,21,466/- for this vehicle. After some days the complainant noticed that the vehicle always showing starting problem. The complainant contended that  this is due to mechanical problem. After that the complainant immediately contact the 1^st opposite party in the month of August 2012. But opposite party did not rectify the problem. On 6/10/12 complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties.  The complainant  also intimates their problem to 2^nd opposite party by E mail. On 11/12/12 1^st opposite party sent reply notice. At the time of visiting the workshop of 1^st opposite party, the complainant found that the vehicle was totally dismantled and doing experiment on vehicle. The complainant alleged that opposite parties are responsible for the mechanical defect of a newly purchased vehicle and deficiency in service by making  delay in curing the defect and handing over to the complainant. The above act of opposite parties caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Complainant prayed for replacement of the vehicle or return of the price of the vehicle with interest and cost.

1^st opposite party is the authorized  dealer of the 2^nd opposite party, Royal Enfield at Palakkad. 1^st opposite party remained exparte.

2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the Royal Enfield motor cycle. 2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version. In the version  of 2^nd opposite party, they  contented that the defect of the vehicle is repaired by 1^st opposite party and the complainant is refusing to take delivery of the vehicle. Hence there is no deficiency in service from their part and request for dismissal of the complaint with cost to the opposite parties.

Complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence from the  part of 2^nd opposite party. Commission report is marked as C1.

Now the following issues are to be considered.

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite

   parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?

      We perused the relevant documents on record. 2^nd opposite party admitted the defects of vehicle and they rectify  the same.   1^st opposite party stated in their reply notice (Ext.A6) that they rectified the defect of the vehicle in time and there is no deficiency from their part and take back the bike within 15 days. As per  Ext.C1 the commissioner opined that the problem of the vehicle is that the defective cam-wheel connected with the starting mechanism of the vehicle. The repair and replacement of the defective cam-wheel is done under the warranty of this  vehicle. All this service  work (problem diagnosis and repair) took 45 days to bring the vehicle to its perfect condition.  Now the vehicle is in good condition with its self starting mechanism working perfectly. Commissioner also reported that no sign of dismantling the engine was found there.  We are of the view that no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint dismissed with no order as to cost.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th  day of  February  2014.   

       Sd/-

    Seena H

   President 

       Sd/-

   Shini.P.R.

    Member

       Sd/-

  Suma.K.P.

   Member

                                                    APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopies of Registration particulars of vehicle dated 8/5/12

Ext.A2 – Invoice dated 24/1/12 issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A3 – Cash receipt dated 18/1/12 issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A4 – Cash receipt dated 24/1/12 issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A5 – Copy of lawyer notice sent to opposite parties dated 6/10/12 

Ext.A6 series – Reply notice dated 11/12/12 alongwith postal receipt

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Commission Report

Ext.C1 – Shri.B.Rajesh Menon

Cost

No cost allowed