Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2852
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J RAJENDRA AVSM, VSM (Retd), PRESIDING MEMBER, MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
Mr. Ravindra Annappa Bindre – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Royal Enfield A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd. – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1976 of 2019|Appeal No. 571/2018|CC No. 44/2016
For the Respondents:Ms. Saumya Pandey & Mr. Varoon Biyani, Advocates
The burden of proving a manufacturing defect lies with the complainant, requiring expert evidence to substantiate claims under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petition challenging order of State Commission modifying District Forum's order regarding manufacturing defect in motorcycle - Complainant alleged persistent oil leakage post-purchase, leading to mental agony and claim for replacement/refund - State Commission directed OPs to make motorcycle roadworthy instead of replacement - Court found no manufacturing defect established without expert evidence; OPs complied with warranty obligations. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 14)
(B) Burden of proof - The burden of proving a manufacturing defect lies with the complainant, and mere repeated repairs do not establish such a defect. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Consumer rights - Consumers are entitled to relief for deficiency in service but must substantiate claims with evidence. (Paras 6, 14)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a motorcycle which exhibited oil leakage. Despite multiple repair attempts, the issue persisted, prompting a complaint for replacement or refund. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, but the State Commission modified this order.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the OPs must replace the engine and make the motorcycle roadworthy, confirming compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
Issues: The main issues were whether there was a manufacturing defect and the appropriateness of the remedies ordered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that without expert evidence, the claim of a manufacturing defect could not be upheld, and the OPs had fulfilled their warranty obligations.
Result: Revision Petition allowed with modifications to the order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition filed under consumer protection act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. consumer's complaint regarding motorcycle defects. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. state commission's modification of district forum's order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments from both parties regarding manufacturing defect. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's analysis on manufacturing defect and repair obligations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. court's findings on warranty and repair responsibilities. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. final order modifying previous judgments. (Para 14) |
| 8. disposal of revision petition with directions. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGEMENT
Air Vice Marshal J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd.)
1. 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
