Complaint filed on:06-05-2022.
Disposed on:30-12-2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
CC.No.89/2022
Sri. K.R.Ramachandraiah S/o Late Rangappa
A/a 61 years, R/of Kodiyala Village,
Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumakuru District.
……………….Complainant/s
(By Sri.H.Maruthi Prasad, Advocate)
V/s
1. The Manager, Bhagavathi Motors,
Sy.No.6/31, Old Sy.No.6/2,
Maraluru Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Tumakuru Taluk.
2. The Manager, Shree Subramanya Motors,
No.1068, Chikkamandiganahally,
Tanniruhall, B.H.Road,
Hassan – 573 201.
3. Royal Enfield India Limited,
No.624, Tiruvottiyur High
Road, Near Tiruvottiyur Bus
Terminus, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019
Tamil Nadu. By its CEO.
……………….Opposite Party/s
(OP Nos. 1 & 2 By Sri. S.Vijayakumar– Advocate)
(OP No.3 – Served – absent)
: O R D E R :
BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER
This Complaint was filed by the complainant with a prayer to direct the OPs to replace the Motor Cycle by new one or to repay the complete amount paid by the complainant towards motor cycle purchased and Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss, damages and mental agony along with interest and such other reliefs.
2. In this case the Opposite Party No.1 is the Manager, Bhagavathi Motors, Sy.No.6/31, Old Sy.No.6/2, Maraluru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk the Opposite Party No.2 is the Manager, Shree Subramanya Motors, No.1068, Chikkamandiganahally, Tanniruhall, B.H.Road, Hassan – 573 201, the Opposite Party No.3 is Royal Enfield India Limited, No.624, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Near Tiruvottiyur Bus Terminus, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019 Tamil Nadu. By its CEO(hereinafter called OPs).
- It is the case of a complaint that the OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of Royal Enfield Motor Cycles and OP No.1 is the Manager of Authorized Service Centre in Tumakuru and complainant purchased Royal Enfield Classic 350 EFI Gun Metal Gray Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No.ME3US5F2LC915554, Engine No.u3s5filc527134, under in-voice No.inv551220210050 on 06.06.2020 by paying an amount of Rs.1,67,895-00. After purchase, the complainant used the above said motor cycle for few days and found the same was not in good condition as there was a jolt sound which was unusual in the engine and it was not rectified in several free services though it was repeated informed to the service adviser working under OP No.1. The complainant further submitted that the service advisor of OP No.1 informed the complainant that the problem is due to manufacturing defect and it cannot be rectified and thereafter the complainant informed about the problem and requested the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to set right the problem or exchange the motor cycle for a new one. It is further submitted that in spite of several requests, the OPs did not neither repaid the amount nor exchanged the vehicle. The vehicle is still with the OP No.1. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the OP Nos. 1 & 2 claiming damages and compensation, but the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have not replied nor complied the said legal notice. Hence, the complaint.
- After the complaint registered, Commission notice has been issued to the OP Nos. 1 to 3. The OP No.3 remained absent through received commission notice. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed the version contending that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA06H5899/CLA-350 was received by the OP No.1 on 29.10.2021 with a complaint stating that there is an abnormal sound coming from the vehicle and at the time of inspection, it was found that the silencer gasket was worn out in the vehicle and thereafter the sound was rectified and the issue was resolved and the same was informed to the customer/complainant. It is further contended that after repair, the OPs informed the complainant to take delivery of vehicle, but complainant delayed to visit the service center and thereafter visited the service center on 22.11.2021 and again complained that the matter is not yet resolved and still he could feel that the abnormal sound was coming. The complainant did not convince even by showing DB meter reading and demonstrated the complainant that the vehicle is in good condition, but the complainant was not satisfied and insisted concerned employee of Royal Enfield Company should come and check his vehicle. Accordingly, the OP requested the arrange a flyer to come and check the vehicle on 26.01.2022 and in turn the OP No.1 agreed to send a flyer on 27.01.2022 and the same was informed to the complainant to visit the workshop on 27.01.2022, but the complainant expressed his inability to visit the workshop and therefore the OP requested the flyer to re schedule and visit after confirmation from the complainant. The OP Nos. 1 and further contended that though they tried their level best to convince the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle stating that the vehicle is in proper condition, but the complainant did not listen to the request and the complainant not ready to get the issue resolved through the company. It is further contended that they have not shown any willful neglect in responding to the complainant and have expressed their readiness and willingness to render appropriate service to the vehicle and further the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have made all correspondence with the complainant in this regard, but the complainant with a malafide intention has filed this complaint without any basis. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- The complainant has filed his evidence by way affidavit and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not file their affidavit evidence in spite of sufficient time is granted.
6. The complainant counsel on 15-02-2023, filed IA, U/o 16 rule 6 of cpc, to direct the OPs (OP No 1) to produce documents before this commission and OPs given time to file objections, but OPs not responded inspite of the sufficient time granted, accordingly IA allowed and on 01-04-2023 this commission issued summons to the OPs to produce relevant documents before this commission, but OPs not produced any documents & not responded.
- . We have heard the arguments of complainant’s counsel. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not address their arguments in spite of several opportunities were granted to them. Hence, argument of OP Nos. 1 & 2 is taken as NIL.
8. The points that would arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant proves the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
9. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: Partly affirmative
Point No.2: As per below order
:R E A S O N S:
Point Nos.(1) & (2):- Point No.1 to 2:
- The complainant counsel argued that the complainant purchased Royal Enfield Classic 350 EFI Gun Metal Gray Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No.ME3US5F2LC915554, Engine No.u3s5filc527134, on 06.06.2020 by paying Rs.1,67,895-00 from the OP No1 and issued in-voice No.inv551220210050. After the purchase, the complainant used the above said motor cycle for few days and found that the said motor cycle not in good condition as there was a jolt sound, which was not rectified in several free services though it was repeated & informed to the service adviser working under OP No 1 & he informed the complainant, that the problem is due to manufacturing defect and it cannot be rectified. The complainant Suffered due to the defective motor cycle supplied by the OP No 1 by taking Rs 1,67,895-00 from the complainant. The OPs inspite of the several requests & legal notice served not rectified the motorcycle defects and prayed to allow the complaint and award compensation. The complainant produced Ex P01, copy of the legal notice dated 27-12-2021, Ex P2, copy of the invoice dated 06-06-2020, Ex P3, postal receipts, Ex P4 & P5 postal acknowledgements, Ex P6 workshop service appointment & Ex P6, CD.
11. In this case, it’s clear from the Ex P2, that the complainant purchased Royal Enfield Classic 350 EFI Gun Metal Gray Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No.ME3US5F2LC915554, Engine No.u3s5filc527134, on 06.06.2020 by paying Rs.1,67,895-00 from the OP No1, which is an admitted fact by the OPs, not disputed. The allegation made by the complainant that the OP No1 supplied the defective motorcycle, the complainant not produced expert opinion or any believable evidences to prove the same. The complainant in his complaint stated that there was a jolt sound in the engine after the few days of the said motorcycle used & which was not rectified by the OPs in several free services obtained, but not specifically stated the date of noticed the jolt sound in the engine and the date of free services obtained from the OPs and not produced any documents regarding these aspects. The OP in its version contended that, said motorcycle received by the OP No.1 on 29.10.2021 with a complaint stating that, there was an abnormal sound in the engine, after the inspection, it diagnosed that the silencer gasket was worn out in the vehicle and same was rectified by resolving complaint of the complainant. Inspite of the OPs informed the complainant to take delivery of the rectified vehicle, the complainant delayed and on 22.11.2021, the complainant visited the OPs service centre, after saw the said vehicle the complainant not satisfied even though the vehicle is in the good condition, upon the discussion based on the requests of the complainant, the OPs arranged flyer to come and check the vehicle, which was scheduled on 27.01.2022, but the complainant expressed his inability to visit the workshop there after and the complainant not taken the delivery of the said vehicle. The OPs not produced any evidences regarding the abnormal sound of the motorcycle rectified, & the communication with the complainant in this regard and the flyer visit scheduled. The OPs even not produced any documents & not replied / not responded, when this commission issued summons to the OPs based on the IA dated:15.02.2023 filed by the complainant seeking direction to the OPs to produce some necessary documents before this commission. When the motorcycle abnormal sound rectified by the OPs, its bound duty of the OPs to communicate the matter to the complainant and handed over the motorcycle to the complainant and even inspite of the commission summons served to produce some documents, the OPs not produced or not responded which leads to deficiency of service on the part of OPs and made the complainant to suffered mentally, hence the OPs are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.5000-00 to the complainant & negligence act of the OPs to not responding to the commission’s summons served & intentionally prolonged the case by taking time to settle the matter outside the court, with adjournments with costs, the OPs are liable to pay cost of Rs.300-00 to the consumer welfare funds account. The OPs compelled the complainant to approach this commission; hence the OPs are liable to pay litigation costs of Rs.8,000-00 to the Complainant. The OPs are directed to rectify the abnormal sound of the motorcycle and hand over to the complainant with good condition, accordingly we proceed to pass the following order,
-:O R D E R:-
The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
The OPs are jointly and severely directed torectify the abnormal sound of the motorcycle and hand over to the complainant with good condition.
The OPs are jointly severely directed to pay Rs.5,000-00 towards compensation & Rs.8,000-00 towards litigation cost to the complainant.
The OPs further jointly and severally directed to pay costs of Rs.300-00 each to the consumer legal aid account of this Commission.
It is further directed that the OPs shall comply the above order jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order otherwise its carry fine of Rs.200-00 per day.
