IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : PRESIDENT Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH F.A.NO.485/2024 (Against order in CC.NO.187/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2025 M/s. Royal Enfield Rep. by its Authorised Signatory (Royal Enfield Global Headquarters)

No.296, Old Mahabalipuram Road M/s. Arun C. Mohan Elcot Sez, Sholinganallur Counsel for Chennai – 600 119 Appellant / 2^nd Opposite party Vs.

1. M. Kannan S/o. Muthukumar No.5/25 A Easwaran Koil Street M/s. Ragupathy Ramapuram Counsel for Chennai – 600 089 1^st Respondent / Complainant

2. M/s. Sreehitha Auto Zone Private Limited Rep. by its authorized signatory No.298/1. Jawaharlal Nehru Salai (100 Feet Road), Jafferkhanpet Served called absent Chennai – 600 119 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint in part. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st Opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.15.11.2023 in CC.No.187/2022.

This appeal coming before me for hearing finally on 1.7.2025, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and the 1^st Respondent and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2^nd Opposite party as against the order dt.15.11.2023 in CC.No.187/2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), in allowing the complaint in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission.

3. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

The complainant had booked a motorcycle model Classic 350 EFI Redditch Red, manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party, on 23.1.2021, from the dealer, the 1^st opposite party herein. At the time of booking the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance, and thereafter the balance amount of Rs.1,78,804/- was paid on 1.3.2021, and thus by paying the price of the vehicle, had purchased the vehicle. But the said vehicle was not functioning properly right from the beginning. The vehicle had many issues in that short period and there was lot of black emission from the silencer in an abnormal way. So the complainant had sent a message to the customer care of the 2^nd opposite party, intimating the defects in the vehicle on 18.11.2021, for which a reply was received stating that their team will contact the complainant shortly. Thereafter, there was no response from the 2^nd opposite party. Whileso, to the shock and surprise, the 1^st opposite party had sent a letter on 23.11.2021 stating that there was manufacturing fault in their batch of vehicles manufactured between December 2020 to April 2021, and asked the complainant to go nearby any service center for proper remedy. Immediately, the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party, and asked for replacement of vehicle. But the 1^st opposite party dragged the complainant and finally refused for replacement for some vague reasons. Thereafter the complainant had contacted the customer care, but they have not properly responded. Hence alleging deficiency of service against the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the cost of the vehicle @Rs.1,88,804/- alongwith compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and cost.

4. Inspite of service of notice, the 1^st opposite party remained absent before the District Commission. Hence they were called absent and set exparte.

5. Resisting the case of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party filed their version as follows:

The statement made by the complainan