State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sukhdev Automobiles Through Its ... vs Kanwal Pal Singh S/O Babu Ram on 30 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 385 of 2023
Date of institution : 03.06.2023
Reserved on : 10.07.2025
Date of Decision : 30.07.2025
1. M/s Sukhdev Automobiles through its Manager Incharge
Nishant Bagh, Near Bahadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala-144001
2. General Manager, M/s Eicher Motors Limited through 3rd Floor,
Select Citywalk A-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017
3. General Manager, M/s Royal Enfield, Plot No. 624, Tiruvottiyur
High Road, Near Tiruvottiyur Bus Terminus Tirutivottiyur, Chennai-
600 019
...Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
1. Kanwal Pal Singh S/o Babu Ram, resident of HIG 683, Phase-I,
Urban Estate, Patiala.
2. Karanvir Singh S/o Sh. Kanwal Pal Singh, resident of HIG 683,
Phase-I, Urban Estate, Patiala.
...Respondents/Complainants
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Patiala in C.C. No. 480 of 2018.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 2 Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Karanveer Singh, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Karajveer Singh, Advocate for
Ms. Sumati Jund, Advocate
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. M/s Sukhdev
Automobiles & Others, have filed the present Appeal through its Manager Incharge to challenge the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Kanwal Pal Singh & Anr. had been allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondents/Complainants in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that on 14.10.2015 the Complainants had purchased Enfield Classic 500-Desert Storm motorcycle from the OP No.1 against the consideration of Rs.1,85,000/-. The Complainants alleged that on the very day of purchase of the motorcycle, the same had suffered with missing problem, which was rectified by the OP No.1. Again on 22.11.2015, it was noticed that fuel sensor of the motorcycle was not working properly, which fault was traced when the bike had run only 600 KMs. After doing necessary repairs/settings, the delivery of the said motorcycle was given to the Complainants on 22.11.2015. Further on 10.12.2015 at 1093 KMs, meter reading self of the bike was burnt, which was also got repaired from Authorized Service Centre i.e. OP No.1. Time and again different problems had been occurred, which were resolved by the OPs from time to time and First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 3 this fact shows that the motorcycle in question had suffered with manufacturing defect. It was alleged that the OPs had not issued any job receipts of these repairs. In May, 2017, the Complainant No. 2 noticed that colour of his bike was fading and there was bubbling and rusting of bike paint, which was informed to the OP No.1 on 10.05.2017 during the service of the bike. OP No.1 consulted the same with Company Engineer Mr. Chandermany, who after inspection told Complainant No.2 that it seems to be a manufacturing defect. On this, the Complainants requested the OPs to replace the bike with new one but Mr. Parveen, Company Engineer declined the said request. Again on 18.09.2018 bike was brought to the Service Centre due to missing breakdown and Paint rusting issue but the OPs refused to repair the same. Upon it, the Complainants had served legal notice dated 26.11.2018 to the OPs. On 03.12.2018, Complainant No.1 had received the telephonic call from the OPs, whereby they asked the Complainant No. 2 to take back his bike from the Service Centre, without rectifying their grievance.
4. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice', it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to replace the motorcycle with new one or return the price of the motorcycle with interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of suffering from mental tension and harassment etc.
5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties had filed the written statement by raising certain preliminary objections that the Complainants had not approached the District Commission with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from the Commission. There was no cause of action to the Complainants and the Complaint had been filed on totally false and vague First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 4 submissions. It was not believable that the Complainants had purchased the new product, which as per their version was found defective at the time of sale. The Warranty terms clearly states that RE will replace or repair the defective part(s) free of charges within a period of 24 months or 20,000 Kms from the date of sale, whichever is earlier, however, their obligations were limited for repairing/replacing the parts, if on examination it was found that the bike did not suffered from any manufacturing defect. Warranty does not apply to electrical equipments, normal ageing of parts, deterioration or rusting of plated parts, paints coat, rubber parts, soft items, glass items and plastic parts etc. There was no proof on record, which clarify that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect. For all repairs, Job Cards had been issued at the Dealer point. The vehicle had been used by the Complainants for long time i.e. about 3 years since its purchase and no such problem was brought to the OPs. As all the times vehicle had been checked properly at the Authorized Service Centre, therefore, neither there was any 'deficiency in service' nor 'unfair trade practice' happened in the present case. Entire allegations of the Complainants were false & fabricated and without any evidence. It was prayed that the Complaint being devoid of any merit, be dismissed.
6. After considering the contents of the Complaint and the reply thereof filed by the Opposite Parties as well as on hearing the oral arguments raised on behalf of both the sides, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 06.01.2023. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-11 is reproduced as under:
"11. From the perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the motor cycle in question was giving repeated problems right from the date of its sale/purchase and the same was left with the service centre on First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 5 18.9.2018. As such the motor cycle is defective/suffering from manufacturing defects and defective piece was sold to the complainant. The complainant could not use the motor cycle and the very purpose for which motor cycle was purchased stands defeated. Accordingly we allow the complaint with the following directions to the OPs;
To replace the motor cycle in question with a new one of similar / equivalent configuration of latest model.
OR To refund the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 14.10.2015 till realization. The OPs are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant. The OPs are entitled to keep the possession of old motor cycle. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order."
7. The aforesaid order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/Opposite Parties by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.
8. Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the motorcycle purchased by the Complainants had run by them for almost 3 years, when they filed the Consumer Complaint, alleging manufacturing defect in the same. The allegation of the Complainants regarding missing problem in the motorcycle at the time of purchase, was not believable because neither any document proving this fact was placed on record nor it is believable that anybody purchased new vehicle, which as per their version was problematic at the time of buying. With regard to allegations of fuel sensor problem, there was no evidence on record to prove this fact. If the said problem occurred and rectified at Service Centre, then certainly some job card in this regard was issued, which had not been annexed. The Complainants themselves admitted that they had driven the motorcycle for First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 6 1093 KMs in just two months i.e. upto 10.12.2015. If there was any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle since its purchase, then the same could not run almost 1100 KMs in two months period, without any problem. With regard to burnt of the self-system and repair of the same, no job card was led by the Complainants to prove that the same was rectified by OP No.1. With regard to blast in the battery and its change by OP No.1, no evidence had been led by the Complainants. The Complainants in their Complaint had mentioned 6 occasions, when problem erupted in the motorcycle, which were rectified by OP No.1 but it is unbelievable that none of the time job card, mentioning the said problems had been issued. With regard to paint problem and submission of meeting with Mr. Chandermany that he was assuring him to replace the motorcycle, no such assurance was given to the Complainants. Paint problem was not a manufacturing problem, it occurred due to rough/improper use of the vehicle and as per warranty terms said defect was not covered under warranty terms. In the email the Complainants had mentioned about the problem of paint fading, which from the perusal of the photographs clearly revealed that the same occurred due to mishandling of the motorcycle.
9. On the other hand, Sh. Karajveer Singh, Advocate learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that since the date of purchase, the vehicle had suffered with different kinds of problems like missing problem in bike, problem in fuel sensor, self-burnt, blast in Battery, improper flow of petrol, short circuit in wiring and colour fading/bubbling. Said defects had occurred in the motorcycle from time to time in a short span of purchase and also on the date of purchase, missing problem arisen in the motorcycle, which was rectified after doing some setting in the same. The vehicle in question had been giving constant problem since 14.10.2015 i.e. the date of purchase till 18.09.2018, hence the cause of First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 7 action was recurring one. The nature of the defects occurred in the motorcycle, clearly reflect that the same relates to bad manufacturing of the same. The OP No.1 had not issued the job cards of the said repairs, however, it was their duty to produce the record (duplicate copy) lying with them regarding the vehicle in question. The Appellants/OPs themselves in their reply admitted that repairs done and defects were rectified at their Service Centre-OP No.1 every time, therefore, it was admitted fact that the vehicle had reached the Service Centre after every short span. The District Commission had rightly allowed the Complaint. It was prayed that the Appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed.
10. We have heard the oral arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, written arguments submitted by the parties and all the relevant documents available on the file. We have also gone through the judgments cited by both the parties.
11. Undisputedly the Complainant had purchased Enfield Classic 500-Desert Storm Motorcycle from OP No.1, manufactured by OPs No.2&3. The Complainants in its Complaint had levelled certain allegations regarding facing of different kinds of problem in the Motorcycle since its purchase. He had alleged that the Motorcycle was giving missing problem, fuel sensor problem, self-burnt of the bike, battery blast, improper flow of petrol, short circuit in wiring etc. He had also alleged that within a short period of its purchase, the colour of the motorcycle had faded from different points and bubbling and rusting occurred on the paint.
12. The District Commission while deciding the Complaint, in para no. 10 had discussed the problems faced by the Complainants and gave its findings, which are as under;-
First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 8
"10. The colour of the motor cycle also started fading and also there was a problem of rusting which was brought to the notice of the OPs. The photographs of same are Ex. C4. The defects in the motor cycle continued and there was missing problems on 2.6.2018, 11.8.2018 and again on 18.9.2018 when the motor cycle was finally brought to the service centre of the OPs and since then the motor cycle is lying in the possession of OPs vide Ex. C3. The OPs have neither repaired the motor cycle nor replaced the same and the same is lying in their possession since 18.9.2018. Ultimately a legal notice was served upon OPs No.1&2. However, no solution to the problems was offered by OP No.1 to the complainant and the complainant was persuaded to take back the motor cycle in as its condition. OP No.1 in its reply had admitted that whenever the defects in the motor cycle were brought in to its notice, the same were attended to satisfactorily.
13. Considering the submissions that whatever the defects in the motorcycle were brought in to its notice, the same were attended satisfactorily, the District Commission consider the said fact as admission on the part of the OPs and had allowed the Complaint. However, on perusal of the impugned order as well as Case File, it reveals that when the Complainants had faced missing problem in the motorcycle at the time of purchase of the vehicle on 14.10.2015, why he had purchased said motorcycle and also why it was not brought the said problem to the notice of the Manufacturer. As per his version, within the period of one month at 600 KMs running, he faced fuel sensor problem in the motorcycle and again within a period of less than one month at 1093 KMs, he faced the problem of self-burnt of the motorcycle. Immediately after sometime, there was blast, which had occurred in the Battery of the motorcycle. It is acceptable submission as in case if the person had suffered such like continuous problems in newly purchased vehicle, why he had not approached the Manufacturer immediately, informing the defects faced in the vehicle. When the Complainants themselves annexed the emails sent by them to the Royal Enfield in the year 2018, informing the problem of colour fading then why they had not informed the above said problems First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 9 faced in the running of the motorcycle from time to time, to the Manufacturer. They had asked for the replacement of the motorcycle only after the expiry of period of its warranty.
14. On perusal of the record, there is one document i.e. Ex. C-5 wherein some problems had been mentioned, which were stated to be informed by the Complainants to OP No.1 like self not working on 10.12.2015, fuel sensor problem on 20.11.2015 and engine noise on 15.09.2016 and all these problems had occurred during the warranty period, which as per the version of the Appellants/OPs, they had successfully rectified/repaired. There was no document available on record to prove that the Complainants were not satisfied with the service/repair done by the OP No.1. It is common practice that when the vehicle runs regularly, the same needs timely service/checking/repairs. The OPs had duly attended the grievance of the Complainant under the warranty term and had removed the same timely. The Complainant No.2 had run the vehicle for almost 3 years and if the vehicle had any manufacturing defect, certainly the same could not run for such a long time. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Classic Automobiles vs. Laila Nand Misra & Ors.", (2010) CPJ 235 (NC) that merely taking a vehicle to a Service Centre does not, in itself, indicate a manufacturing defect. Further in "Ravindra Annappa Bindre v. M/s Royal Enfield", R.P. No. 1976 of 2019, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that in the absence of specific facts or evidence establishing manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the Complainant cannot demand replacement of vehicle which is otherwise being used.
15. Another grievance of the Complainants is with regard to fading of the colour and raising of bubbles in the colour of the motorcycle. The Complainants had used the vehicle for a period of three years and as per First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 10 their emails, it revealed that they had informed the OPs regarding fading/bubbles in the colour in the year 2018. To examine the said issue, we have perused the colour photographs annexed with the Complaint file by the Complainants themselves and it transpires from the same that the said problem had occurred due to rusting occurred on different parts of the vehicle. Generally rusting occurs due to intake of water on iron parts and the said photographs clearly revealed that the rusting had occurred on joints of various parts of the motorcycle. It appears that it had happened due to improper care of the motorcycle. Generally rusting occurs due to mixing of water with iron. On perusal of the Owner's Manual annexed by the Complainants themselves as Ex.C-10, it is observed that at pages No. 39 & 40 of the same, under the 'Warranty Terms & Conditions' that warranty does not apply to paints coating. The relevant terms mentioned at serial No.7 (a) & (l), are reproduced as under:-
"7. Warranty shall not apply to
(a) Normal ageing, deterioration or rusting of plated parts, paints coat, rubber parts, soft items, glass items, plastic parts etc.
(l) Oxidization of buffed/painted/powder coated items etc."
16. Therefore, in our opinion the Complainants had failed to prove on record any 'manufacturing defect' in the motorcycle or fading of the colour was due to bad quality of the paint. If as per the version of the Complainants, Mr. Chanderrmany had assured them that fading of colour was manufacturing defect and assured to change the motorcycle, why they had not called the said person before the District Commission or asked them to file his affidavit in this regard, to prove their case but no such exercise was done by the Complainants to prove their allegations. Hence, the Complainants had failed to prove the said allegations on record. First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 11
17. It is clear that the vehicle had run for almost three years successfully and during running, some minor defects had occurred, which got removed after repair at the Service Centre. Said act does not amount to 'manufacturing defect' in the vehicle. Rather a routine exercise/problems had occurred in the running of the vehicle. Therefore, in no circumstances, the Complainants has been successful to prove on record any manufacturing defect in the vehicle by leading any cogent evidence or that the fading of colour is the case of manufacturing defect.
18. The District Commission in its order had not thoroughly discussed the grouse of the Complainants and by giving the benefit to the documents annexed with the Complaint by the Complainants, had allowed the Complaint without going into the validation of the same and without giving any reasoning before coming to the conclusion that as to whether the motorcycle was having any manufacturing defect or not. In view of our above discussion, it is proved that the Complainants have failed to lead any evidence to prove that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect. Therefore, the said findings of the District Commission needs to be discarded. Also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment i.e. "Maruti Udyog Ltd. Versus Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr." II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) had observed that "in the case of manufacturing defect, the obligation of respondents (Company) under warranty is only to repair or replace any part found to be defective, which has been done in this case. Otherwise there is no evidence on behalf of the complainant that any other manufacturing defect in the operation of the car". In the present case also, the minor defects, had occurred during the running of the motorcycle during the warranty period, the OP No.1, being the Authorized Service Centre of the Manufacturer Company, had satisfactorily removed the same and with regard to non-satisfaction, no First Appeal No. 385 of 2023 12 Complaint on behalf of the Complainant was available on record, which to prove that he was not satisfied with the service provided by the Authorized Service Centre. Therefore, in our view, there was no 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' proved on the part of the Appellants/OPs.
19. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, documents available on the file and the settled law, we are of the opinion that the motorcycle in question had not suffered from any kind of manufacturing defect and the allegations in this regard levelled by the Complainants were frivolous one. Therefore, in these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 is set-aside. Consequently, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed for the reasons referred above. No order as to costs.
20. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
21. The Appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the Appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the Appellants, as per practice.
22. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER July 30, 2025.
as