Date of Filing:20/09/2018
Date of Order:04/03/2020
BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 04thDAY OF MARCH 2020
PRESENT
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT
SRI. D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1547/2018
COMPLAINANT | | DR.H.S. VENKATACHALAPATHI, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.3/1, 1st Cross, Gangappa Block, Ganaganagar, Bangalore 560 032. (Sri Satish.V Advocate for Complainant) |
| |
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1 | The Service Manager ROYAL ENFIELD CVS MOTORS. No.13, Sankey Road, Near Hotel Nandini Deluxe, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 052. |
| |
| 2 | THE MANAGER ROYAL ENFIELD CVS MOTORS. No.209, Upper Place Orchards, Cauvery Theatre Junction, Bellary Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 080. |
| 3 | THE GENERAL MANAGER(MARKETING) ROYAL ENFIELD Tiruvottiyur High Road, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019. (OP.No.1 and 2 exparte) (OP.No.3- Sri R.b. Sadasivappa Advocate) |
ORDER
BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.
1. ThisComplaintisfiled by the ComplainantU/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in servicein collecting an amount of Rs.6,069/- even though AMC was in existence and for refund of the same and for Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and pain by Op and for such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that:OP.No.3 is the manufacturer of Royal Enfield Bullet Electro Motorbike, Op.No.1 is the authorized service center and Op.No.2 is authorized showroom.
3. Complainant purchased the said motorcycle on 28.11.2014 by paying its value and got its registered under No.KA-04 HX-9999. It is contended that, after taking delivery of the vehicle, it had some problem which was shown to the OP.No.1.Though the same was attended, the said problem still persisted. Again on 16.01.2015, when the vehicle had run for 415 kms, the said problem persisted and taken to OP.No.1 for several times. Inspite of OP.No.1 attending the same, the same could not be solved. The same was brought to the notice of OP.No.2 who after much discussion assured that they would discuss with the technical persons and solve the problem. He has paid the repair charges as and when demanded by OP.No.1. On each and every occasion Op.No.1 and 2 assured him that they have repaired the vehicle properly and there would be no recurrence of the said problem. After the expiry of the warranty period, he entered into AMC with OP.No.1 and 2. When the vehicle was taken on 24.11.2017, for the repair work, OP.No.1 and 2 raised a bill for Rs.6,652/- as repair charges and when he found and enquired as to why the chain has been replaced, and the bill has been raised, OP revised the bill for Rs.6,069/- which was adjusted by Op when he had swiped his credit card for a higher sum on a earlier occasion. Though AMC was in existence, OP.No.1 and 2 has charged the amount which is illegal, unethical and unfair trade practice. The defects in the motorcycle was brought to the notice of OP.No.3 who is the manufacturer of the said motorcycle.It assured in the beginning that the motorcycle will be replaced with a new one whereas it refused to do so afterwards.
4. He had a fond aspiration of having a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle during his study days which could not be fulfilled and when he entered into the job, he could able to purchase the motorcycle to enjoy the ride. But due to the defect in the motorcycle which was not rectified properly by OP.No.1 and 2, he was much disappointed and facing tremendous problem and undergoing mental cruelty and agony. He cannot use the said vehicle for the purpose for which he purchased. He had to issue legal notice to OP.No.1 to 3 who received the same but did not reply. Hence the complaint.
5. Upon the service of notice OP No.1 to 3 remained absent and placed exparte.On the next of hearing, Op.No.1and 3 through their advocate filed application U/O 9 rule 7 and got the exparte order set aside and contested the complaint by filing version.
6. In the version filed and signed by OP.No.3, it is contended that the complaint is devoid of merits, filed with a mala-fide intention, barred by law of limitation, vexatious, baseless, frivolous and hence liable to be dismissed. Besides denying all the allegations made in each and every para of the complainant, it is contended that OP.No.3 is the manufacturer of motorbike which has worldwide market being supplied to 94 countries, having 800 dealers in all major cities and 5 dedicated gear stores and 200 authorized service station. Each and every parts used for manufacturing of the motorbike has been tested and approved by the quality department.
7. There is no manufacturing defect in the motor cycleand the complainant is liable to follow the directions of the guidelines issued for use of the vehicle and also as per the warranty booklet. In case there is any manufacturing defect in the parts used in the motorbike the same is to be replaced and not the motorbike entirly. The warranty is issued subject to the terms and conditions. The warranty issued to the bike purchased by the complainant has already expired. The vehicle was brought to OP.No.1 for routine maintenance and servicing as per the schedule and distance covered by it. OP No.3 and OP.No.1 have given all possible assistance in repairing the motorbike and putting it on the road for the use of the complainant.
8. They have all along being responding to the complaint of the complainant. The complainant has used the said vehicle for almost 5 years and now with lame reasons, seeking for replacement which cannot be granted and prayed the forum to dismiss the complaint.
9. In order to substantiate their case, complainantand OP filed theiraffidavit evidence which is nothing but repetition of the contents of the complaint and the version and got marked the documents. Perused the same.Heard the arguments.The points arise for our consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
10. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT 1&2 : In the Negative.
For the following:
REASONS
POINT No.1 and 2:-
11. We have perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of theparties and the documents filed by them. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased Royal Enfield motor bike manufactured by Op.No.3 sold by Op.No.2 and serviced by OP.No.1. It is the specific case of the complainant that Op.No.1 was not at all attending to the repairing of the motorbike. The job card produced when perused it becomes clear that no major issues have been raised in the said job cards. On perusing the same it becomes clear that the vehicle was left with OP.No1 for regular routine checkup and servicing. Several time oil top-up has been done, replacement of the oil filter and checking-up of break pipes and breaks and adjustment. On 2 to 3 occasions the vehicle was left for washing.It was also mentioned in Ex.P2 that the vehicle was left for general service and Teflon quoting and the chain lubrication and cleanser kit was replaced and breather pipe was also replaced.
12. When the vehicle had run 21,775 kms again, oil was changed air filter replaced, stainer clean, replacement of handle bars, front pads were done and the chair and sprockets were checked and alignment of handle bars was attended. The wheel alignment,Teflon quoting, change of front break shoe and pad air filters replacement were done.
13. When all these are taken into consideration, even though there is an AMC with OP.No.1 and 2 regarding the said motor bike, it clearly shows that labour service is free and all other services including spare parts are to be paid . When such being the case, the contention that the OP No.1 and 2 have charged for spare parts and service cannot be accepted. Infact the complainant has failed to prove as to what are all defects with which the vehicle was taken to OP.No1. and 2 for repair and in what way the said problems were not solved . There is no expert opinion in this regard and also the mechanic who has attended to the work is also not examined to bring out the truth of the matter. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to bring out the deficiency in service or the manufacturing defect inthemotorbike and also the unfair trade practice by the OPs. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVEand in the result complainant is not entitle for any of the relief. Hence we answerPOINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVEand proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The Complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the complaints/ version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by her corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 04thDAY OF MARCH 2020)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
PW-1 | Dr.H.S.Venkatachalpathi– Complainant. |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the Registration certificate.
Ex P2: Copy of the AMC
Ex P3: Copy of the credit card statement.
Ex P4: Copy of the email correspondences.
Ex P5: Copy of the legal notice
Ex P6: Copy of the Postal receipts
Ex P7: Postal acknowledgments.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Rajesh, Area Service Manager of OP.No.3
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
Ex R1: Job cards (4 in Nos.)
Ex R2: Invoices (3in Nos.)
Ex R3: Insurance certificate.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
A*
