Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/186

Gurjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

B. Govindarajan - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Handa

20 Feb 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

       C. C. No.        186 of 2017

  Date of Institution :         13.06.2017

  Date of Decision :            20.02.2019

 

Gurjit Singh son of Gurmail Singh resident of Street No. 6 (R), Balbir Basti Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. B Govindarajan, Chief Operating Officer, Royal Enfield, Eicher Motors Ltd Regd Officer : 3^rd Floor, Select Citywalk, A-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
2. Managing Director, Royal Enfield Regional officer : 7, HSIDC, Old Palm, Sector-18, Near Paco Maruti Car Showroom, Gurugram-122005 (Harayana).
3. M/s Baba Farid Automobile Authorized Dealer-Royal Enfield Motorcycle, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot, 151203.

                                    ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective motorcycle or return the entire price of said vehicle

 

C. C. No.- 186 of 2017

and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a motorcycle make Royal Enfield, colour black, engine no.U3K5COGL172977, chassis no. ME3U3K5COGL172977 from OP-3 vide bill no.157 dated 27.10.2016 for 1,11,200/-. At the time of purchase OP-3 assured five years warranty of engine and one year guaranty for accessories of motorcycle and also promised to provide free service in case of any problem. It is submitted that from the very next day of purchase, motorcycle in question started giving some strange noises. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-3, who after formal check up assured that it would be alright after running upto some kilometres. But even after some days, said defect did not remove and thereafter, complainant visited OP-3 on 13.12.2016; 22.02.2017 and 3.05.2017 for free services and every time he reported the complaint regarding harsh sound produced by motorcycle in question. On 3.05.2017, complainant requested OP-3 to remove the problem of harsh strange noise coming out of motorcycle or to replace his vehicle in question, but OP-3 flatly refused to do anything needful asserting that they had to sell the vehicle, which they have sold and now it is the problem of complainant that there is any defect in his vehicle. Despite repeated requests by complainant, OP-3 did not redress his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade  mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to replace the said defective motorcycle and to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

 

 

C. C. No.- 186 of 2017

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.06.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and 2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is vexatious. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and no cause of action arises against them and it is devoid of any merits. It is admitted that complainant purchased the said vehicle on 26.10.2016  from OP-3 and for the purpose of service, he visited them on 13.12.2016, 22.02.2016, 3.05.2016, 3.07.2016 and lastly on 9.09.2017. Motorcycle of complainant was thoroughly checked and it was found that there was no defect in vehicle in question. No alleged noise as complained by complainant comes out of motorcycle and it was delivered to complainant in perfect condition and up to his entire satisfaction. It is averred that full support and assistance was given to complainant by OP-1 and OP-2 and their authorized service centres and there is no manufacturing defect in motorcycle in question.  Complainant duly signed the job card and motorcycle was handed over to him in perfect condition. However, on merits also Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP-3 also filed written reply taking same ground as taken by OP-1 and  2  in their written statement and averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissed of complaint.

5                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered

C. C. No.- 186 of 2017

in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                           The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Navjot Sharma Ex.OP-1,2/1, affidavit of Navpreet Singh Ex OP-3/1 and documents Ex OP-3/2 to Ex Op-3/6 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

8                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a motorcycle make Royal Enfield, from OP-3 vide bill dated 27.10.2016 for 1,11,200/- on cash payment. At the time of purchase OP-3 assured five years warranty of engine and one year guaranty for accessories of motorcycle and assured five free services.  On the very next day of purchase, motorcycle in question started giving some strange noises. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-3, who after formal check up assured that it would be alright after running upto some kilometres. But even after some days, said defect did not remove and thereafter, complainant visited OP-3 on 13.12.2016; 22.02.2017 and 3.05.2017 for free services and every time he reported the matter of harsh sound produced by motorcycle to them. On 3.05.2017, complainant requested OP-3 to remove the problem of harsh strange noise coming out of motorcycle or to replace his vehicle in question, but OP-3 flatly refused to do anything needful saying they had to sell the vehicle, which they have sold and now it is the problem of complainant that there is any defect in his vehicle. Despite repeated requests, OP-3 did not redress his grievance and paid no heed to his requests. Several requests

C. C. No.- 186 of 2017

made by complainant to Ops to repair the motorcycle, bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service. Prayer for accepting the present complaint is made. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 8.

9                               To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs averred that present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. No cause of action arises against them and it is devoid of any merits. Though it is admitted that complainant purchased the said vehicle on 26.10.2016  from OP-3 and for the purpose of service, he visited them on 13.12.2016, 22.02.2016, 3.05.2016, 3.07.2016 and lastly on 9.09.2017, but denied all the other allegations of complainant being incorrect. It is argued that  motorcycle of complainant was thoroughly checked and found to be defect free. No alleged noise as complained by complainant comes out of motorcycle and it was delivered to complainant in perfect condition up to his entire satisfaction. Even full support and assistance was given to complainant by OP-1 and OP-2 and their authorized service centres and there is no manufacturing defect in said motorcycle.  Complainant duly signed the job card and motorcycle was handed over to him in perfect condition. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                          We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle from OPs against proper bill on cash payment. Since the day of purchase some harsh popping sound is produced by motorcycle. Complainant reported the matter to OPs and made requests to either remove the defect or to

C. C. No.- 186 of 2017

replace the motor cycle in question, but Ops paid no heed to his request. There is no dispute that complainant is the consumer of OPs and it is also admitted that complainant reported the matter regarding harsh sound coming out from motorcycle in question to OPs. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not removed the said defect of popping sound coming out of said motorcycle. As per complainant there is some manufacturing defect in motorcycle in question due to which harsh popping sound cannot be removed from it. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that there is no manufacturing defect in said motorcycle and it was handed over to complainant in perfect condition. It is observed that there is only minor dispute of harsh sound produced by complainant, which does not effect the efficiency and working of motorcycle. There seems to be deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not providing effective and requisite attention to the requests of complainant in not removing the said defect of harsh sound  produced by motorcycle by not extending proper services. 

11                                                  From the above discussion and keeping in view the documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to provide best and effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant and repair the motor cycle of complainant and remove the defect of harsh sound produced by motorcycle of complainant. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to

 

C. C. No.- 186 of 2017

proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 20.02.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President