Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J Rajendra AVSM, VSM (Retd), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Ravindra Annappa Bindre – Petitioner
versus
M/s. Royal Enfield A Unit of
Eicher Motors Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.1976 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 17.07.2019 in Appeal No.571/2018 of the State Commission Maharashtra) With IA/14260/2019 (Exemption From Filing Annexures)
Decided on 25.6.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58(1)(b) and 85] – Manufacturing Defect – It is an admitted position that the motorcycle purchased on 19.10.2015 was under warranty when the oil leakage occurred within a short span of purchase. The repair was attended to by the OPs and the required parts were replaced free of charge to the Complainant. Undisputedly, the defect was only with respect to the engine oil leakage. When the Complainant was not satisfied despite attending to it on multiple occasions, as a measure of goodwill, the OPs offered engine replacement to the Complainant free of any charges. For some reasons, the Complainant did not permit the OPs to replace the engine and insisted for motorcycle replacement. It is, therefore, evident that the warranty obligation of OPs in providing free service with respect to motorcycle and replacement of defective parts during the period was complied with by OPs. In any case, there is nothing on record to indicate that there has been any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle which entails consideration for replacement of the vehicle itself by the OPs. The impugned order is based upon the conclusion the learned District Forum arrived at on the basis of the frequent regime that were necessitated on the machine – The learned State Commission vide order dated 17.07.2019 directed OP-1 and 2 to make the vehicle of the Complainant roadworthy by replacing the engine of the vehicle and handover possession to the Complainant. At the same, the learned State Commission has also directed that, as the vehicle is lying with the OP-3 since November 2015, whatever defects may have been created in the vehicle of the Complainant, OP-1 and 2 shall also cure the same by taking repairing charges with respect to the same from the Complainant. However, in view of the fact that the serviceability of the vehicle remained in question, the motorcycle remained with OP-3 since November 2015 and the fact that the Complainant was deprived of the use of new motorcycle purchased at such high value, we are of the considered view that the liability of costs towards bringing the motorcycle to roadworthy condition shall entirely be with OP-1 and 2 – Petition disposed off with directions. [Paras 7 to 14].
Result: Petition disposed off with directions.
JUDGMENT
AVM J Rajendra AVSM, VSM (Retd), Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (State Commission”) order dated 17.07.2019 in FA No. 571 of 2018 partly allowing the appeal and modifying the Addl Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navi Mumbai (“District Forum”) order dated 10.04.2018 in CC No. 44/2016.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a new Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350cc Motorcycle from Opposite Party (OP) No. 1 the dealer for Rs.1,54,762 on 19.10.2015. Upon delivery, he noticed sealant tape on the engine and was assured it was normal. However, oil leaked severely during the drive home. Despite multiple repair attempts by OP-3 (authorized service centre), including immediately after delivery, after the first free service and subsequent visits, the engine oil leakage problem persistently recurred, causing mental agony and rendering the motorcycle unusable for longer journeys. Alleging manufacturing defects and gross deficiency in service, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, he refused further repairs and demanded OP-1 & OP-2 (the manufacturer) replace the motorcycle or refund the full purchase price Rs.1,54,762 plus RTO charges Rs.9,878 and insurance costs Rs.2,999 along with Rs.5,00,000 compensation and Rs.25,000 litigation costs.
4. On being issued notice, OPs filed their Written Version and denied the allegations in full. While admitting the Complainant reported oil leakage which they attended to, including servicing on 27.10.2015, they asserted there was no leakage at the time of delivery and claimed all reported problems were properly resolved. They contended that the subsequent leakage might have resulted from the Complainant’s failure to follow operational instructions. OP-1 and OP-2 specifically denied the motorcycle had any inherent manufacturing defect or that they committed any deficiency in service and therefore sought dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum, vide order dated 10.04.2018 allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed the OPs as under:
FINAL ORDER
1. The consumer complaint no. 44/2016 is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 are guilty of deficiency in service.
3. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall replace the vehicle in question with Brand New one with RTO passing and Insurance to complaint without charging any extra cost.
4. In case it is not possible for Opposite Party no 1 & 2 to comply with the direction in clause 3 above the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall refund to complainant amount of Rs.1,54,762/- (the price of vehicle), Rs.9878/- (RTO registration charges) and Rs.2999/- (Insurance) totalling to Rs.1,67,639.
5. The Opposite Party No 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony.
6. The opposite party No 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) towards litigation expenses.
7. The Opposite Party No 1 & 2 shall comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation mentioned in clause No 5 above from the date of order till realisation.
8. Complaint as against Opposite Party No 3 stands dismissed.
9. The copy of order be sent free of cost to both parties.”
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the OP-1 & 2 had filed Appeal No. 571 of 2018. The learned State Commission vide its Order dated 17.07.2019 partly allowed the Appeal with following directions:-
“ORDER
1
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
