The Consumer Protection Act mandates proof of manufacturing defects, which was not established in the present case; thus, the complaint was dismissed.

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 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 submissions. It was not believable that the