Bengaluru Consumer Commission Directs Hero MotoCorp And Dealers To Refund Motorcycle Cost Over Persistent Engine Defect
The Bengaluru Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Syed Anser Kaleem (President), Sharadhi S.M. (Member) and Jyothi N.B. (Member) held Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and its dealers liable for deficiency in service for failing to rectify recurring defects in a newly purchased motorcycle and directed them to refund the vehicle's price after deducting 10%...
The Bengaluru Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Syed Anser Kaleem (President), Sharadhi S.M. (Member) and Jyothi N.B. (Member) held Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and its dealers liable for deficiency in service for failing to rectify recurring defects in a newly purchased motorcycle and directed them to refund the vehicle's price after deducting 10% depreciation.
Brief facts
The complainant, Mr. Ganesh J., purchased a Hero Xtreme 125R motorcycle from Sai Motors, an authorized dealer of Hero MotoCorp, on 1 July 2024. Soon after the purchase, the complainant alleged that the motorcycle repeatedly developed a serious defect wherein the engine would suddenly switch off while the vehicle was in motion on the road.
According to the complainant, he reported the issue to the dealer on multiple occasions and visited the service centre several times for repairs. Despite repeated servicing and replacement of various components, including throttle body, clutch plates, clutch switch, clutch lever, fuel pump, fuel injector, wiring kit and air filter, the defect allegedly continued to persist. The complainant contended that the recurring defect posed a serious safety risk and could potentially lead to accidents while riding the vehicle.
The complainant further alleged that despite more than ten visits to the service centre and repeated complaints made to the dealer, Hero MotoCorp officials, and even through the National Consumer Helpline portal, the issue remained unresolved.
Aggrieved by the continued malfunctioning of the motorcycle and the failure of the opposite parties to rectify the defect permanently, the complainant approached the Bengaluru Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought refund of the vehicle cost along with compensation and litigation expenses.
Contention of the Opposite Parties
The opposite parties contended that no manufacturing defect was found in the motorcycle during inspection and test rides conducted by their technical team. They argued that the complainant's allegations could not be reproduced during testing and that several parts were replaced only as a customer satisfaction measure. The manufacturer further submitted that the vehicle was covered only under warranty terms and that replacement or refund of the vehicle was not warranted under the policy conditions.
Observations and Decision
The Commission observed that the motorcycle had repeatedly developed the issue of engine switching off while running on the road and that the complainant had approached the service centre numerous times within a short period after purchase.
The Commission noted that several components of the vehicle were replaced by the opposite parties, which itself indicated the existence of defects in the motorcycle. It further observed that despite repeated repairs and inspections, the issue could not be permanently resolved.
The Commission also noted that numerous job cards had been generated in respect of the vehicle and that the opposite parties had themselves admitted that the vehicle turned off during a test ride, which supported the complainant's case regarding the recurring defect.
The Commission held the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and directed them jointly and severally to refund ₹88,800 to the complainant, representing the purchase price after deduction of 10% depreciation, upon return of the motorcycle. The Commission also awarded ₹2,000 towards litigation costs.
Case No.: CC/199/2025