State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Royal Enfield Motor Ltd. vs Kulwant Singh Chauhan And Another on 1 April, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 245 / 2008
Royal Enfield Motor Ltd.
Thiruvottiyur High Road
Thiruvottiyur, Chennai through its Marketing G.M.
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Kulwant Singh Chauhan S/o late Sh. Kashiram Chauhan
R/o Bahadarabad, Post Khas
Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Prem Automobiles
Near Railway Crossing, Jwalapur
District Haridwar through its Proprietor
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. Tarun Matta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Sanjay Yadav, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Respondent
No. 1 in person
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 01/04/2011
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.09.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 191 of 2007 against the opposite party No. 1 - appellant and directing the opposite party No. 1 to provide a new motorcycle of the same make and model to the complainant with new warranty in replacement of the motorcycle in question and also to pay litigation expenses of 2 Rs. 2,000/-. The consumer complaint was, however, dismissed against the opposite party No. 2.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a bullet motorcycle from the opposite party No. 2 on 18.10.2006 for sum of Rs. 72,095/-. The said motorcycle was manufactured by the opposite party No. 1. According to the complainant, right from the beginning, the said motorcycle did not work properly and it had manufacturing defect. Several complaints were made by the complainant, but the defect was not removed. The complainant got his motorcycle inspected by the engineer of the opposite party No. 1 on 08.06.2007 and 20.06.2007, wherein defects were found in the motorcycle and it was also found that the said defects were manufacturing defects and the same are not repairable. But the defects were not cured. The complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties on 12.06.2007 and when no satisfactory action was taken by the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties filed written statement and pleaded that the complainant got his motorcycle serviced on 31.10.2006, 17.02.2007 and 29.04.2007 and at that time, the complainant did not lodge any complaint in connection with his motorcycle. In the service of 07.05.2007, the complainant made a complaint regarding noise in the vehicle, which was immediately rectified. On 07.07.2007, the complainant lodged a complaint regarding leakage in engine, noise in gear box and the vehicle getting heated, which were duly rectified and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant in satisfactory condition. The notice sent by the complainant was duly replied and it was clearly mentioned in the reply that if there is any defect in the 3 motorcycle, the opposite parties are ready to rectify the said defect. It was also pleaded that the opposite parties have provided satisfactory service and there has not been any deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 20.09.2008 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 1 has filed this appeal.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 - complainant and also the complainant, who also appeared before us in person.
6. As per the complainant, the only remedy is to replace the vehicle as he took the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party No. 1 - appellant several times for repairs, but everything has gone fruitless, as the defect in the motorcycle could not be removed. It is also stated by the complainant that as the defect in the vehicle could not be removed and, as such, the vehicle is standing idle and he is deprived from the enjoyment of the vehicle.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that whenever the vehicle was brought to the workshop, the defect was removed and proper and necessary repairs were carried out. It has also been submitted that there is no justification for demanding the new motorcycle in place of the motorcycle purchased by the complainant. Only the replacement of the defect part can be made and during the repair, in order to remove the defect, the defective parts were duly replaced.
48. It is worth to mention here that during the pendency of the consumer complaint before the District Forum, the complainant never intended to produce the affidavit of any Automobile Engineer, which could suggest that the motorcycle in question is not in proper working condition. The opposite party No. 1 - appellant filed the affidavit of one Sh. Praveen Srivastava, who is the Service Engineer in Royal Enfield Motor Ltd. He has specifically stated in para 4 of his affidavit that there is no manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. This witness was not cross-examined by the complainant. Hence there is no justification in holding that the affidavit filed by the witness of the opposite party No. 1 - appellant, is false. It was the duty of the complainant to establish his case that the motorcycle was suffering with any sort of manufacturing defect, which could not be removed inspite of the best efforts made by the Automobile Engineer.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another reported in I (2006) CPJ 3 (SC), has held that if any defect is found in the vehicle within the term stipulated in warranty obligation, then the obligation of the company is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part of the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the High Court was not justified in directing the replacement of the vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case cited above, directed that the replacement of the defective part of the vehicle should be made.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the direction issued by the District Forum for replacement of the motorcycle, is wrong and not justified and, thus, is liable to be set aside. However, we direct the appellant - Royal 5 Enfield Motor Ltd. to make the motorcycle in perfect running condition. It is also worth mentioning here that the motorcycle in question is standing idle, as it is not in perfect running condition, with the result that the complainant could not enjoy the ride of the motorcycle for the last several years. We accordingly direct that the Royal Enfield Motor Ltd. instead of replacement of the motorcycle, shall make the motorcycle in proper running condition within a period of one month and also pay sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant towards damages.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside. The appellant - Royal Enfield Motor Ltd. is directed to remove the defects in the motorcycle in question and make the motorcycle in proper running condition within a period of one month and also pay sum of Rs. 8,000/- as damages to the complainant. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K