Haryana

Ambala

CC/188/2023

SH.SUNIL KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL ENFILED PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL KUMAR

16 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	188 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	29.05.2023
Date of decision	:	16.05.2024

Shri Sunil Kumar aged about 39 years son of Shri Jagdish Chander, Village Chhapra, P.O.Kathgarh, District Ambala 134003, Mob-9622664422.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Royal Enfield Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Thiruvottiyur High Road, Thiruvotiyur, Chennai-60019.
2. Royal Motors, 170/10, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt.-133001.
3. Royal Motors, Near Passport Office, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, 134003.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

 Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                    Shri Gursimar Singh, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    Shri Balbir Singh Jaspal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.2 &   3.

Order:        Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To either replace the Royal Enfield bike classic 350 Chrome black bearing chassis No.ME3U3S5F1LG686926 and Engine No.U3S51LG31322. Bharat stage 6 from the OP on 19.07.2020 vide LS order No.37131 dated 06.07.2020 by New one of the same model being having Manufacturing defect or to return the cost of the Royal Enfield bike alongwith interest @18% p.a from the date of purchase i.e from 19.07.20, till the date of payment.  
2. To pay compensation of Rs.2,55,324/- causing mental agony, harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay litigation expenses.
4. Grant any relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that complainant was looking for a new Royal Enfield bike for his personal use. Accordingly, he approached the OP No.2 for the said purpose. OP No.2 showed him Royal Enfield classic 350 chrome black and assured that it is the best bike in this segment and is most suitable to complainant. On the assurance and representation of OP No.3 the complainant purchased a Royal Enfield bike Classic 350 chorme black bearing Chasis No.ME3U3S5F1LG686926and Engine No.U3S5F1LG313222, Bharat stage 6 from the OP on 19.07.2020 vide LS order No.37131 dated 06.07.2020. From the date of purchase of complainant bike has started rub rear tire due to manufacturing defect of REAR Wheel. Complainant immediately brings the issue to the notice of OP No.3 since the first service visit to workshop as nearby the complainant. The workshop of OP No.3 said to the complainant that there is no issue finding with Rear Wheel, while the bike was rubbing rear tire and it is no longer safe and legal to issue also as complainant told to the workshop Manager. The workshop Manager did not take serious and release the Bike from the workshop without rectify the fault on every service visit, advised let the Bike be continue run more three thousand kilometers. The same process was continue and the complainant was facing same issue, complainant made several visit to OP workshop to take the issue several time service of his new bike. On third periodical service the OP No.3 workshop told to complainant that you have need to change Rear Tyre while the Bike run sixteen thousand kilo meters only. Complainant immediately change the rear tyre on third service as advised by the workshop so that his bike and ride could safe, but the fault was still as it is and the new tyre was also started rubbing as like first one speedily. As opinion given by the workshop after 3000 Km again visit to workshop of OP No.3 for the same issue but the no any satisfied answer from workshop and fault did not rectified. Complainant have changed two new tyres within 29 km from the date of purchase new Bike while the bike is under warranty till 19.07.2024 and workshop did not rectify the fault of rear wheel which is manufacturing defect. Hence, the present complaint.  
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objection with regard to not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that complainant has purchased a Bike Royal Enfield Classic 350 chrome black, from the authorized dealer of the OP No.1 bearing chassis No.ME3U3S5F1LG686926 and Engine No.U3S5F1LG313222. The bike was delivered to the complainant in a completely roadworthy condition, after due pre-delivery inspection. Complainant has been in continuous use of the vehicle after purchase and has availed various services during the course of its use since 2020. The vehicle has been in continuous use and has been running in optimal condition. The vehicle has been routinely serviced at regular time intervals and he always remained in running condition. Whenever any issue was raised same was duly addressed. During the Third servicing, the bike has run to almost 16000 kilometers which clearly established that there was no manufacturing defects would have left the bike unusable. During the third servicing, the bike was again serviced and handed over to the complainant in a completely road-worthy condition. All the necessary repair work was also done on the bike, any and all issues were duly addressed. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.           Upon notice, OPs No.2 and 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objection with regard to not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts and maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is manufacturer of Royal Enfield Motor Cycle dealer of Royal Enfield motorcycle and OPs No.2 and 3 are authrozied dealer of Royal Enfield. Complainant had purchased Royal Enfield motor cycle on 19.07.2020 from OP No.2. All the terms and conditions including warranty was explained to the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
5.           The complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Nishant Soni, Authorised Signatory of OP No.1 as Annexure OPW-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OPW-1/1 to OPW1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. The learned counsel for OP No.2 and 3 tendered affidavit of Harminder Singh, Proprietor  of M/s Royal Motors, Ambala Cantt and Ambala City as Anneuxre RW/A alongwith documents as  Annexure R-1 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and 3.
6.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 and have also carefully gone through the case file. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 filed written arguments.
7.       Complainant submitted that by selling the defective vehicle in question, having manufacturing defects therein and on the other hand by neither rectifying the defects therein during warranty period, free of cost, nor replacing the same with a new one nor refunding the price thereof, the OPs are deficient in providing service.
8.  Learned counsel for the OP No.1 has submitted that the bike was delivered to the complainant in a completely roadworthy condition, after due pre-delivery inspection. Complainant has been in continuous use of the vehicle after purchase and has availed various services during the course of its use since 2020. The vehicle has been routinely serviced at regular time intervals and he always remained in running condition. Whenever any issue was raised same was duly addressed. During the Third service, the bike has run to almost 16000 kilometers which clearly established that there was no manufacturing defect. During the third servicing, the bike was again serviced and handed over to the complainant in a completely road-worthy condition. All the necessary repair work was also done on the bike, any and all issues were duly addressed.
9.  Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 submitted that OP No.1 is manufacturer of Royal Enfield Motor Cycle dealer of Royal Enfield motorcycle and OPs No.2 and 3 are authorized dealer of Royal Enfield. Complainant had purchased Royal Enfield motor cycle on 19.07.2020 from OP No.2. All the terms and conditions including warranty were explained to the complainant. He further argued that tyres are wear and tear accessories and the same does not cover under warranty. He further submitted that there is no mention in any service record of the bike in question to the effect that the tyres of the bike were got damaged due to manufacturing defect in the bike. Thus allegations of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect in the bike are totally false, frivolous and baseless. The complainant has not placed record any expert evidence on the file regarding manufacturing defect in the bike. The counsel for the OP No.2 and 3 prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
10.           During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the claim of the complainant does not cover under the warranty as the tyres are wear and tear items. From the perusal of service record, it has been duly established that there is no manufacturing defect in the bike in question. Complainant has not placed on record any cogent evidence in support of his complaint regarding any manufacturing defect in the bike in question. The complainant placed on record only tax invoice (Annexure C-1), copy of policy (Annexure C-2), Copy of RC (Annexure C-3) and Copy of pollution Certificate (Annexure C-4) nothing else, which are not sufficient to prove the case of the complainant. On the other hand, from the perusal of technician copy/job card, Annexure R-1 to R-4, it is evident that there is no mention of damage of the tyres of the Bike in question. Thus, it cannot be said that the tyres of bike in question were replaced due to any manufacturing defect in the bike in question. The complainant did not produce any expert evidence to either show the nature of defect or proof of manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to prove that the bike purchased by him having any manufacturing defect due to which tyres of the bike in question were replaced time and again. In this way, complainant has failed to prove his case. Thus, we are of the view that there is no substance in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 16.05.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President