By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint in brief is as follows: -

            The complainant is the registered owner of Royal Enfield classic 350 Motor bike with registration No. KL-10-  AX- 6510 which is bought from Blue Mountain Autos Calicut on 29/9/2017. All services of the vehicle was done from ABC Motors Valluvambram .The total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 1, 55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty-five thousand only). But within a short period of use the silencer of the vehicle rusted and started to form small holes on the silencer.  The filters over the silencer dropped into and began to make disturbing sounds and thereby the motor cycle became worthless to use.  The complainant being a teacher, he was regular user of the motor bike for travelling a short distance from his residence to school.  The total kilometer covered during the complaint period was only 11,500 kilometers. So, the complainant alleges that the silencer manufactured with low quality material.  The vehicle was started to form rust within one year of purchase.  The complainant was regular to report the same before the service manager on every occasion, but they were not serious about the complaint.  On 22/02/2019 when the vehicle was taken to the service Centre, demanded to replace the silencer but they refused. Apart from that they blamed the complainant and stated the reason for the rust as extra ordinary usage of the vehicle   and default in regular service.   As per the warranty condition four free services are to be done within a period of two years. The complainant had availed whole the free services in time.   The first service was on 24/06/2017 while the vehicle   covered 455 kilometers.  The second service was on 28/08/2017, while the vehicle covered 902 kilometer and third service was on 29/12/2017 while the vehicle covered 2185 kilometers. The fourth service was on 06/03/2018 while the vehicle covered 2968 kilometers.    As per the service condition the above four services have to be under gone within 500 kilometers, 3000 kilometers, 6000 kilometers, 9000 kilometers respectively.   As per the record the complainant has availed whole the free services in time. The complainant availed a service on 22/02/2019 while the vehicle covered 7795 kilometers which was paid service.   But it is pertinent to not that the whole services are not recorded in service book.  The opposite party said to the complainant that the complainant had to avail three paid services during this period.  According to opposite parties it is to be done while the vehicle covered 12000 kilometers, 15000 kilometers, and 18000 kilometers respectively.   But it can be seen that the vehicle had used only 11500 kilometers so far. It is also submitted by complainant that the silencer of the vehicle alone is complaint of rust and the allegation of non-availing service to the vehicle caused rusting is baseless.   The complainant is afraid of causing complaints to other parts of the vehicle in coming future and aggrieved by the act of the opposite party, the complainant prays for compensation of altogether Rs.1,87,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty-seven thousand only).

2.        On admission of the complaint issued notice to opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed detailed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.

3.         The 1^stopposite party filed version admitting that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from 2^ndopposite party on 29/05/2017. It is also admitted that five services were done from the 1^stopposite party, but denied all other averments in the complaint.  The 1^stopposite party denied that the silencer of the vehicle affecting rust, causes small holes on various parts, dropping filters inside the silencer, there is sound from the silencer, vehicle is not worthy to use, he is being a teacher highly need of the vehicle, the distance between house and school is very short are denied by the opposite party. The contention of the complainant that the vehicle was ridden only 11500 kilometers, the vehicle mean while itself became worthless, silencer is older or substandard are denied by the opposite party.  It is contented that the complainant never reported a complaint regarding rusting during the period of service and the vehicle was not purchased from him. It is also denied that  the silencer of the vehicle started to rusting within one year, the same was  reported to the  service person  several times and it was not duly considered  and that resulted  in present situation  and the vehicle was again taken to  service Centre  on 29/10/2019  and demanded  to replace silencer  considering the warranty  and the opposite party  refused the same,  moreover  responded  in a rude manner, alleged that  the cause for rust  has  excessive use of vehicle  are incorrect.   The opposite party submitted that, if the complainant had complaint regarding rusting during the period of service it should have noted in the job card and it is the practice to note down the work to be carried at the time of service and the customer will put signature in the job card while receiving vehicle and after service, but the job card related to the vehicle of the complainant does not reveal   the so-called complaint regarding rust.   On 22/02/2019 the vehicle was brought to the opposite party by one person called Mr. Sumesh and not by the complainant. The opposite party submitted that they are not bound to provide free of service after 28/05/2019, on the day ends warranty period.  It is denied that the service manager told him that, the complainant did not avail free service in time. Actually, complainant availed four free services but he is bound to avail paid services also after covering distance of 12,000, 15,000, 18,000 respectively.  The opposite party submitted the complainant has not availed all the services required to be availed. Opposite party submitted that the complaint is filed after the expiry of warranty period.  

4.        The 2^nd opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite party on 20/05/2017 but denied the entire allegations in the complaint.  The 2^nd opposite party submitted that the complainant never approached the 2^nd opposite party after purchase of the vehicle and they are totally blank regarding all the allegations in the complaint and they are not aware about the use of the vehicle and how long it was running.   The opposite party is not aware of rust on body parts and it is submitted that they will never cheat their valuable customers by selling defective vehicles and they are treating customers as valuable and stands for the interest of customers.  The 2^nd opposite party contented that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from their side.  It is submitted that the role of the 2^nd opposite party is limited to the sale of the vehicle to the complainant at his choice and satisfaction. They are providing good service on all occasions and will be ready to serve customers up to their satisfaction.  So the prayer of the 2^nd opposite party is that there is no bonafide or sufficient reason for impleading the 2^nd opposite party as party in the proceedings, the complaint is not maintainable on either under law or on facts, not entitled to any relief as claimed in the complaint. 

5.   The 3^rd opposite party filed elaborate version denying the entire averments, allegations in the complaint.   According to opposite party No.3 complaint is devoid of merits   made with false and misleading statements and also with incomplete facts.   The complainant approached the commission with unclean hands suppressing material facts contrary to the real chain of events, concealed essential information with contorted facts to suit this complaint and to procure relief thereby.  The 3^rd opposite party also contended that complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The 3^rd opposite party contented that they are the oldest Motorcycle manufacturer in the world and it is a unit of Eicher Motors Limited and has been a pioneer of powerful four stroke engine technology since 1955 in India. The manufacturing Centre of the 3^rd opposite party is at Chennai and they offer a   variety of models catering to the needs of the traditional segments, the enthusiasts, the leisure bikers and the urban youth.   They manufacture quality bikes that are well known worldwide for their reliability and toughness.  They have got State -of- the- art infrastructure to manufacture the same and has an active in house Research & Development Wing  constantly at work to meet changing customer preferences and the challenges of Indian and international environment standards.  The opposite party submit that while introducing new products a dedicated team of opposite party No.3 undertakes all related planning which includes rigorous customer contact program, design, concurrent engineering, and testing processes.  The design team is well equipped with high end CAD/CAM work stations and the latest modeling software.  The Top–notch designers of the opposite parties work continuously to come up with innovative bike designs to meet the market’s expectation. They are conducting rigorous testing of motor cycles and components is carried out by opposite party in its product development testing lab to come up with more improvements in enhancing the customer’s experience.   The Chennai manufacturing facility has received   the ISO9001 Certification and for managing its operations in same and environment it has obtained the ISO14001-quality certifications are implemented to ensure the quality levels are kept at an ever-rising pace. The 3^rdopposite party submitted that they follow the best quality practices with respect to workmanship and materials used in its bikes.  The opposite party warrants its bikes to be free from all manufacturing and material defect under normal use subject to certain norms and conditions. 

6.         The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the warranty guidelines are given through a warranty booklet to the customers which state according to them as follows:-

1. “RE will replace or repair defective part(s) at their dealership and authorized service center, free of charge within a period of 24 months or 20,0000 kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier.
2. During the warranty period, RE’s obligation shall be limited to repairing/ replacing part(s) of the vehicle for free, only if the part (s), on examination is deemed to have been manufacturing defect.  Defective part(s) which have been replaced will become the sole property of RE.
3. The warranty shall be applicable only if all the 4 free services & periodic maintenance services are availed in the respective period /Kilometer ranges as per the schedule in the owner’s manual from RE dealers/authorized service centre.
4. Warranty shall not apply to ………damages due to non-genuine parts, lack of proper maintenance, incorrect riding habits, and accidents.
5. RE reserves the right of finally decide on all warranty claims.”  

7.              The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that during the warranty period the obligation is limited to repairing, replacing part(s) of the vehicle for free, only if the part(s) on examination is deemed to have a manufacturing defect. The contention of the third opposite party is that the alleged issue is result of the blatant disregards shown by the complainant for the proper maintenance and routine service of the vehicle.  The complaint is on the basis of fictitious and fabricated issues to obtain undue money from the opposite parties.  The complainant has willfully avoided routine and periodic services recommended by the 3^rdopposite party.  The contention is that the complainant chooses to only do the 4 free services and 1 subsequent paid service. But the guideline states that the service interval should be no more than three months or every 3000 kilometers.  According to 3^rd opposite party the complainant should have done 10 services in the duration of usage of the vehicle.   The 3^rd opposite party contented that “the warrantee shall be applicable only if 4 services and 1 paid service are availed in the respective period/kilometer ranges as per the schedule in the owner’s manual from RE authorized dealer/Service center.  The contention of the 3^rdopposite party is that the complainant did not avail paid services of five to seven which ought to have been done 24/05/2018, 22/08/2018, 20/11/2018 respectively.  The contention raised by the complainant regarding rust is not covered under the warranty as per Owner’s manual Warranty guidelines and the complainant has never raised a concern of rust to the service centre at any point of time.  The compensation according to opposite parties claimed by complainant is exorbitant and without any basis and the vehicle does not have any manufacturing defect and it is submitted that they have duly provided services and assistance to the complainant throughout the usage of the vehicle.

8. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents filed on the side of complainant marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is copy of RC of Vehicle No. KL-10 AX-6510 Motor Cycle. Ext.A2 is copy of retail invoice dated 20/05/2017 for Rs. 1,37,251/-(Rupees One lakh thirty seven thousand two hundred and fifty one only), Ext. A3 is copy of  photographs  of silencer , Ext. A4 is Photocopy of a page  from service book.  Documents on the side of opposite parties marked as Ext. B1. Ext.B1 is Job card original dated 22/02/2019 issued by 1^st opposite party.

9.      Heard both sides, perused affidavit and documents and the following points   framed to adjudicate complaint: -

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the allegation of defect to the silencer of the motor cycle is correct or not?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief and cost?

10.     Point No.1

          Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle which is manufactured by 3^rd opposite party and the complainant bought it from 2^nd opposite party the dealer and the 1^st opposite party is the authorized service centre. The complainant purchased the vehicle for Rs. 137,751/-(Rupees One lakh thirty seven thousand seven hundred and fifty one only) and the grievance is with respect to quality of the silencer of the vehicle.   It can be seen that the complainant is a consumer as defined the Consumer protection Act 1986 and which is maintainable against opposite parties.

11.   Point No.2

           The grievance of the complainant is that, he purchased the motor cycle from the 2^ndopposite party which is manufactured by 3^rd opposite party on 20/05/2017 and the silencer of the vehicle became defective within short period of its use.  The silencer began to rust and to form small holes on different parts. The motor cycle became worthless to use.  The complainant reported the same every occasion while the vehicle was taken for service to the 1^st opposite party.  But it was not considered by the opposite party.   Finally on 22/02/2019 when the vehicle was taken for the service to the opposite party, it was asked to rectify the defect to the silencer but they did not mind for his complaint. Thereafter complainant demanded for the replace of defective silencer, but it was told that the validity period of warranty expired on 28/05/2019 and so they are not able to redress his grievance. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant ought to have availed 10 services during the complaint period which he has not carried out.    But the complainant submitted in his complaint that he availed services on 24/06/2017, 28/08/2017, 29/12/2017, and 06/03/2018 respectively.    During this service period  the vehicle was covered  455km, 972km, 2155km, 2968 KM He also submitted in his complaint  the above said four services  has to be carried on 53^rd day or on completion of 500kms , 105 days  or on completion of  3000 kms, 195 days  or on completion of 6000kms ,  285 days or on completion of 9000kms.  So he claims that he availed regular service without any default.  He also submitted that, he availed paid service on 22/02/2019 and at that time the vehicle was covered only 7795 kms only. The allegation is that the opposite parties never entered in the service record regarding the services provided on each service.   He submitted that  all the occasions  he represented the  grievance  regarding the  rust  and  forming  holes on the silencer,  but it was  never find a place in the  service record. The opposite parties produced Ext.B1 document which only reveals the work carried out by the opposite party at the time of 5^thservice done on 22/02/2019.  The job card reveals at the time of 5^thservice the vehicle was covered only 7755 kms only which is an incomplete document. The 3^rd opposite party contended  in the version  that “ The warranty shall be applicable only if all the 4 free services and 1 paid service are availed  in the respective period /kilometer ranges as per the schedule in the Owner’s manual from RE Authorized dealer/ service center”.   In this complaint,  the complainant  4 free services  and 1 paid service  from the  authorized service center. In this complaint,  the opposite parties or the complainant has not produce the service history of the vehicle. It is also to be noted that neither the complainant nor the opposite parties produced owner’s manual and warranty guidelines. 

12.       The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the grievance of the complainant regarding rust is not covered under the warranty and it is clearly stated in the owner’s manual and warranty guidelines. It is also contended that the job cards or services done will never reveal the issue of rust has risen by complainant before the service centre at any point of time.  But it is to be noted that owner’s manual and warranty guidelines or the job cards regarding the service history has not produced before the Commission.    The complainant on the other side has got a contention that the opposite party has not recorded all the versions of service done in the job card.  The opposite parties are silent on the issues raised by the complainant except the flat denial of none reporting of complaint regarding rust. There is no specific denial on the part of opposite parties regarding existence of rust to silencer. The complainant has produced Ext. A4 which is a photograph of the disputed silencer.  It is apparent from the photographs that there is rust on the silencer.  The complainant submitted that, if the opposite parties are ready and willing to assess the veracity of his version, he is prepared to bring the vehicle for the examination. But the opposite parties are silent on the issue. Hence from the affidavit and document it can be seen that there was rust to the silencer of the complainant vehicle.    It can also be perused the complainant availed four free services in time as prescribed.  He availed 5^th paid service also.   All these occasions he brought his grievance before the manager of the service centre of 1^st opposite party.   There was no proper service to his grievance. Subsequently the complainant was told the warranty period has expired and so his complaint cannot be considered.  From the above facts it can be seen that there was rust to the silencer as alleged by the complainant and no proper service was provided by the opposite parties.

13. Point No.3

          The opposite parties admit the fact the complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party and he availed four free services and there after one paid service also.   It is also admitted fact that 3^rd opposite party is manufacturer of the vehicle. The grievance of the complainant is the rust to the silencer of the motor bike and formation of small holes on the silencer and thereby the vehicle turned to worthless. Complainant is a school teacher regularly using the vehicle to travel a short distance from his residence to his school.   Hence the usage of the vehicle for riding is apparently limited one.  There is no history or evidence of usage of this vehicle in a careless manner.  The complainant has not raised any allegations except regarding the issue on silencer. 

14.     The 3^rd opposite party contented in their version the issue raised by the complainant is not covered under the warranty and which is stated in the owner’s manual and warranty guidelines.  But the opposite party not cared to produce copy of owner’s   manual  and  warranty  guidelines.  The   averment  in the   affidavit  that  the

grievance is not covered under the warranty, we find very important.  The Commission finds the silencer of a motor bike is an integral part of vehicle and it is provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle.    It is the liability of the manufacturer to redress the grievance of complainant on a product liability action.  It cannot be accepted that the grievance of the complainant is not covered under the warranty.  It can be seen that the claim of the complainant placed before the service Centre within the warranty period itself.  Complainant has got a grievance that the opposite parties did not record the complaint of the complainant which is an unfair trade practice.   Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. We find there is merit in the complaint and the complainant is entitled to redress the grievance as prayed in the complaint.

15.        In the light of above facts and circumstances we allow the complaint as follows:-

1.  The opposite parties are directed to replace the defective silencer of the motor cycle with a defect free new silencer.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay  Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation  on account of  unfair trade practice and deficiency   in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby  caused in  convenience , physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the above said entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of this order till realization.

       Dated this 11^thday of January, 2022.

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4.

Ext.A1: Copy of RC of Vehicle No. KL-10 AX-6510 Motor Cycle.

Ext.A2  : Retail invoice dated 20/05/2017

Ext. A3 : copy of  photographs  of silencer .

Ext.A4 : Photocopy of a page  from service book. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1

Ext. B1:  Oiginal Job card  dated  22/02/2019 issued by  1^st opposite party

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER