Ernakulam District Commission Holds Royal Enfield Motors Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the party liable for deficiency in service over the sale of a vehicle with manufacturing defects to the Complainant. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant made a reservation for a motorcycle with the dealer and paid an advance...
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the party liable for deficiency in service over the sale of a vehicle with manufacturing defects to the Complainant.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant made a reservation for a motorcycle with the dealer and paid an advance of Rs. 5000 regarding the same. Following multiple missed delivery timelines the dealer offered to switch the order to a different model that would be delivered in two weeks. The complainant agreed and changed the order with a different model, but the original model was delivered rather than the newly ordered one. The delivered motorcycle had manufacturing defects and frequent breakdowns and the complainant lost income due to the issues. Even after assurances of quality, the problems persisted. As a result, the complainant has alleged unfair trade practices by the manufacturer for producing a defective vehicle. They have also alleged a deficiency in service by the authorized dealer for the delayed and incorrect delivery, missed promises, and inability to resolve the problems.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The manufacturer argued that their warranty only covers repairing or replacing defective parts, not the entire motorcycle. They stated that the consumer does not have sufficient evidence or expert testimony to prove there was a manufacturing defect. However, the Commission disregarded the manufacturer's claims in their written note since they failed to file pleadings or affidavits to the Commission formally, hence the proceedings were held ex-parte.
Observations by the Commission
The commission relied upon the case of Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Anr, where the National Commission ruled that when defects are evident in a vehicle from the start, and the dealer acknowledges them, it is a clear indication of manufacturing issues and supports the argument of negligence. The manufacturer and the dealer in this scenario not only provided a faulty vehicle but failed to remedy the situation, causing further inconvenience to the complainant. Instead of addressing the concerns raised, the dealer misled the complainant into changing his booking under false assurances. Furthermore, the dealer's inability to provide the initially booked model and subsequent delivery of a defective motorcycle, along with their false assurances, clearly pointed to dishonest and deceitful business practices.
The Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 1,60,467 spent on the purchase and registration of the vehicle, along with a payment of Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards the cost of proceedings.
Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. S. Ranjith
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. Joson Manavalan
Case Title: Thomas N.V Vs. Royal Enfield Motors Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No.- 116/2015
Click Here To Read/Download The Order