NARENDRA REDDY vs Eicher Motors Ltd

FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in this order are referred to according to their position in the complaint filed before the District Forum.

THE complainant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25/7/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bangalore Urban I Additional, in Complaint No. 325/2007, by which the District Forum has dismissed his complaint. The case of the complainant is that he is a Mechanical Engineer running an industry under the name and style of M/s. Global Vacuum Products. He intended to purchase a new Royal Enfield Bullet Machismo Bike (for short, Bike) manufactured by opposite party No. 1 (for short, "o. P. 1") through O. P. 2. On the representation made by O. P. 2 regarding the quality, performance and good fuel efficiency of the Bike, he purchased a Bike on 12. 6. 2006 by paying a sum of Rs. 86,725. The said Bike bears Registration No. KA-01/fb-7447. The case of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of the Bike he was assured that the bike is in a good running condition and he was promised best and efficient service anytime anywhere. But within few days from the date of purchase, he noticed abnormal vibration, engine getting heated to abnormal high temperature, unusual sound in the engine. This fact was brought to the notice of the Service Personnel on 19. 6. 2006. But even after attending to the defects pointed out, according to the complainant, the defects still existed. The further case of the complainant is that in spite of repeated visits, O. P. 2 was unable to rectify the defects. The further case of the complainant is that due to the abnormal vibration and high temperature he suffered severe pain in the arms, neck, etc. Besides this, his four pants were damaged during the use of the Bike and there was burning of the skin of his legs.

The complainant in his complaint has averred that at least for about 12 times he took his vehicle to O. P. 2 but O. P. 2 was unable to rectify the defects as it could not identify what was the exact problem in the engine. Therefore, O. P. 2 advised the complainant to approach O. P. 3 which is an Authorized Service Point. The complainant has also addressed his grievances before the National Consumer Help Line through e-mail. But he was suggested to take up the case with the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers and Society for Automotive Fitness and Environment for guidance. Accordingly, he had addressed a letter dated 27. 10. 2006 to the said Authorities for guidance. The complainant also addressed a letter dated 27. 10. 2006 to O. P. 1 which is the manufacturer of the Bike highlighting his grievances. In reply to the said letter, O. P. 1 expressed its regrets over the problems faced by the complainant and assured that it would get back with proper solution within one month. Again the complainant sent an e-mail on 14. 11. 2006 to O. P. 1 regarding the plan of action to solve the problem and requested either for replacement of the Engine with a new Engine or to replace the Bike itself with a new one.

THE further case of the complainant is that as directed by O. P. 2 he took the Bike to O. P. 3. O. P. 3 was able to identify and locate the problem and it informed that the problem was with the crankshaft assembly, because of which magnet and coil came in physical contact resulting in abnormal vibration and high temperature, which in turn had damaged magnet, coil and clutch. Thereafter, on 30. 11. 2006 the complainant had sent an e-mail to O. P. 1 intimating the identification of the problem and expressing that he does not want the locally assembled engine, as he was made to run for three months to rectify the problem loosing much of his business and he requested O. P. 1 to replace the engine with a new engine assembled at the Factory and provide one year warranty for the new engine. But to his surprise he found that the engine was dismantled by O. P. 3 without any support of technical experts and without adhereing to the basic norms and, therefore, though O. P. 3 requested the complainant to take delivery of the Bike, he refused to take delivery of the Bike. Since O. P. 1 did not come forward to replace the Bike the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking for a direction to the O. Ps. to replace the Bike with a defect free Bike or to refund the amount by keeping the Bike with them. The O. Ps. have filed version before the District Forum denying the claim of the complainant either for replacement of the Bike or for refund of the money. According to O. P. 2, the complainant has not approached O. P. 2 on 12 occasions as stated in the complaint. However, O. P. 2 admits in the version that the complainant had taken the Bike to O. P. 2 on 4 occasions for routine check up, i. e. , on 19. 8. 2006, 1. 9. 2006, 18. 9. 2006 and 28. 9. 2006. In the version the O. Ps. have stated that they have attended to all the defects pointed out by the complainant and the complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle he having satisfied with the work done by O. P. 2 relying as per the Job Card. So far as the e-mail sent to O. P. 1 as averred by the complainant is concerned, there is no denial.

THE District Forum after raising three points for consideration, answered point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the complaint. This order is under challenge by the complainant in this appeal. Now the question that arises for consideration by this Commission in this appeal is: whether the District Forum is justified in dismissing the complaint? It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the Bike manufactured by O. P. 1 through O. P. 2 on 12. 6. 2006 by paying a sum of Rs. 86,725. According to the complainant within few days after he purchased the Bike, he noticed abnormal vibration, engine getting heated to abnormal high temperature and unusual sound in the engine and he reported this fact to O. P. 2 on 19. 6. 2006. The case of O. P. 2 is that on 19. 6. 2006 the Bike was brought to it for usual check-up and after attending to the defects pointed out by the complainant the Bike was re-delivered to the complainant. No doubt the complainant has signed in the Job Card in the column provided for taking delivery with satisfaction regarding the work done. If really the Bike did not have any problem, there was no need for the complainant to approach O. P. 2 within 7 days from the date of purchase, as the Bike was not taken to O. P. 2 for servicing, but it was taken with a specific complaint. Merely because the complainant has signed in the Job Card saying that he has taken delivery of the Bike having satisfied with the work done it does not mean that the defects were rectified, since the vehicle was not subjected to any road test at that time. The defects can be noticed only after using the vehicle on the road. Again the complainant approached O. P. 2 on 1. 9. 2006 with several complaints. The Job Card dated 1. 9. 2006 discloses what were all the defects pointed out by the complainant. The said defects are: (1) Service, (2) Oil Change, (3) Overhauling, (4) Head gasket oil leak, (5) Mileage (32), (6) Clutch oil leak, (7) Gear hard after (5 kms.) (8) I. IH For screen oil leak, (9) Reane Shocks adjust, (10) Stay Nut loose, (11) Cam Noise, (12) More Vibration.

If the averment of O. P. 2 in the version that the defects were rectified were to be accepted, O. P. 2 ought not to have directed the complainant to take the Bike to O. P. 3 stating that there are minor problems. Further, if really the problems in the Bike were minor ones, O. P. 2 itself could have attended to them instead of directing the complainant to approach O. P. 3. This fact has not been noticed by the District Forum.

THE complainant in the e-mail sent to O. P. 1 had specifically stated that the Engine should be assembled at the Factory as per the norms of the Factory and one year warranty should be given for the new Engine. O. P. 3 dismantled the Bike at its level itself. But O. P. 3 was able to identify and locate the problem and it intimated that the problem was with the crankshaft assembly, because of which magnet and coil came in physical contact resulting in abnormal vibration and high temperature, which in turn had damaged magnet, coil and clutch. These problems being major problems, the complainant requested O. P. 2 to get the vehicle repaired at the Factory instead of allowing O. P. 3 to attend to the problems. When the complainant was asked by O. P. 3 to take delivery of the vehicle he noticed that O. P. 3 had dismantled the Engine of the Bike in his garage without any support of technical experts and without adhreing to the basic norms. It has to be noted that since the complainant himself is a Mechanical Engineer he could notice whether the defects pointed out by him were attended to as per the norms with the support of technical experts. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the way in which O. P. 3 had dismantled the Engine, he did not take delivery of the Bike.

THE complainant purchased the Bike thinking that it would be useful for his business as he was assured that the vehicle in question is of a good quality. But when he noticed that there were several defects in the Bike and when he brought the defects to the notice of the manufacturer, the manufacturer ought to have sent the Bike to the factory and got it rectified either by replacing the engine or by replacing the Bike itself in order to save its reputation in the market field. But, unfortunately, relying upon the version of O. P. Nos. 2 and 3, the manufacturer has not come forward to replace the Bike. The complainant has produced four damaged pants while he was using the Bike. After looking at the said pants, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that the pants were damaged due to excessive heat generated from the engine. If that were to be the case, necessarily there is an inherent defect in the Bike itself. Therefore, the District Forum ought to have allowed the complaint and directed the O. Ps. to replace the Bike or, in the alternative, to refund the amount to the complainant. As stated earlier, the complainant being a Mechanical Engineer could notice whether O. Ps. 2 and 3 had, in fact, attended to the repair work and made the vehicle defect-free. He noticed that O. P. No. 2 was not in a position to identify where exactly the problem lies. O. P. 3 also instead of sending the vehicle to the factory in order to get the defects rectified dismantled the engine without any support of technical experts and without adhering to the basic norms, though the complainant had specifically requested the manufacturer to get the Bike to the factory and to remove the defects by changing the engine. In this regard, the complainant has also produced the photographs which were taken at the time when O. P. 3 dismantled the Engine of the Bike. The defects pointed out on 1. 9. 2006 referred to above speak of the fact that there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the Bike. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. No doubt, the complainant also has suffered loss in his business as he could not make use of the Bike which he purchased.

After hearing the arguments on behalf of the complainant, we have waited for hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for O. P. 3, but he did not turn up and address arguments. The O. Ps. are also not present.

HENCE, we pass the following Order : (1) The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. (2) The complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum is allowed in the following terms: (a) O. P. 1 is directed to replace the Royal Enfield Bullet Machismo Bike bearing Registration No. KA-01/fb-7447 supplied to the complainant with a defect free new one and take back the said Bike from O. P. 3, since it is already in the possession of O. P. 3, within two months from today. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (b) O. P. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 86,725 to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of purchase, i. e. , 12. 6. 2006 till realization and take back the Bike which is in the possession of O. P. 3. (c) O. P. 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to the complainant towards the cost of these proceedings.

Appeal allowed.