The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore, recently directed motorcycle manufacturer Royal Enfield and its authorised dealer Bharat Automotives to pay Rs 5.1 lakh compensation to a consumer after finding that a motorcycle sold to him continued to suffer repeated mechanical and electrical defects despite several repairs carried out under warranty.
The Bench of President P Dakshanamoorthy and Member G Suguna held that the continued defects in the Continental GT 650 motorcycle and the failure to permanently rectify them amounted to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission directed the manufacturer and dealer to jointly pay Rs 5 lakh towards mental agony, hardship and incidental expenses, along with Rs 10,000 as litigation costs. The amount will carry interest at 12 per cent per annum if not paid within two months. A detailed copy of the order is awaited.
Appearing for the complainant, Advocate R Sivakumar submitted that Coimbatore-based advocate Uthresh Gobu purchased the motorcycle in May 2022. According to the complaint, the vehicle started developing defects shortly after delivery and repeatedly suffered mechanical and electrical malfunctions during the warranty period.
The complainant stated that defects were reported in several components, including the instrument cluster, keyset, suspension assembly, throttle body, electrical wiring system, sensors, exhaust pipes and silencers. The instrument cluster was allegedly replaced six times due to recurring malfunctioning and fogging issues, while the keyset was replaced three times. Multiple other spare parts were also replaced at authorised service centres on several occasions.
It was further alleged that repeated replacement of the instrument cluster resulted in inconsistent odometer readings, adversely affecting the resale value and reliability of the motorcycle.
The complainant relied on service records, workshop job cards, invoices and correspondence to show that the motorcycle was repeatedly taken to authorised service centres in Coimbatore, Pune, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Noida, New Delhi and Kullu. The vehicle allegedly remained at various workshops for more than 294 days cumulatively during the ownership period.
Advocate Gobu submitted that the recurring breakdowns and prolonged repair periods disrupted his professional commitments across different cities and caused mental distress and financial loss.
Apart from the manufacturing defects, the complaint also raised issues regarding the sale and registration process. It was alleged that the dealer charged a higher insurance premium at the time of delivery than what had been quoted earlier. The complainant further contended that despite submitting correct identity documents, his name was incorrectly entered during the vehicle registration process, resulting in an error in the Registration Certificate.
After examining the material placed on record, the Commission observed that the repeated failures, coupled with the inability of the manufacturer and dealer to permanently rectify the defects despite multiple repair attempts, constituted a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
