STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 03.06.2023 Reserved on : 10.07.2025 Date of Decision : 30.07.2025

1. M/s Sukhdev Automobiles through its Manager Incharge Nishant Bagh, Near Bahadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala-144001

2. General Manager, M/s Eicher Motors Limited through 3^rd Floor, Select Citywalk A-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017

3. General Manager, M/s Royal Enfield, Plot No. 624, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Near Tiruvottiyur Bus Terminus Tirutivottiyur, Chennai-

600 019 …Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus

1. Kanwal Pal Singh S/o Babu Ram, resident of HIG 683, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Patiala.

2. Karanvir Singh S/o Sh. Kanwal Pal Singh, resident of HIG 683, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Patiala.

…Respondents/Complainants First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in C.C. No. 480 of 2018.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellants : Sh. Karanveer Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. Karajveer Singh, Advocate for Ms. Sumati Jund, Advocate 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