NCDRC Holds Royal Enfield, Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, held Royal Enfield and its dealer liable for deficiency in service over the sale of a vehicle with a defective engine. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a new Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350cc motorcycle from an authorised dealer. On the same day, he noticed sealant tape on the engine and was told it was normal. But while riding home, oil started leaking. The vehicle was taken for repairs several times, including immediately after delivery and during the free service, but the oil leakage kept recurring. The complainant claimed the vehicle had a manufacturing defect, which made it unfit for long journeys. He filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking replacement of the motorcycle or a refund of ₹1,54,762, plus additional charges for RTO and insurance. He also asked for ₹5 lakh compensation for mental agony and ₹25,000 litigation costs. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, declared the manufacturer and dealer guilty of deficiency in service, and ordered them to either replace the motorcycle with a new one at no extra cost or refund the full purchase price along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000. Being aggrieved, the dealer and the manufacturer filed an appeal before the State Commission of Maharashtra. On appeal, the State Commission modified the District Forum's decision. It set aside the order to replace the bike or refund its price. Instead, it directed the manufacturer and dealer to replace the engine and make the motorcycle roadworthy. They were also told to fix any damage caused during storage but could recover those repair costs from the complainant. However, the compensation and litigation cost amounts granted by the District Forum were upheld. Consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission. Arguments of the manufacturer and the dealer The dealer and manufacturer denied the claim. They admitted the oil leakage issue but said it was repaired promptly. They claimed the bike had no manufacturing defect and that repeated issues may have been due to mishandling by the complainant. They also argued that the District Commission made an error by declaring a manufacturing defect without expert evidence, as required by law. In their appeal, they said they had even offered to replace the engine free of cost as a goodwill gesture, which the complainant refused. They claimed that abandoning the bike at the service centre for years led to further damage and that the complainant should bear those repair costs. Observations by the National Commission The Commission observed that the complainant did not submit any expert evidence to prove that the bike had a manufacturing defect, as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It held that repeated repairs alone do not prove a manufacturing defect. It referred to the ruling in Classic Automobiles v. Lila Nand Mishra, I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), where it was held that in the absence of expert reports, repeated repairs cannot be the sole basis to declare a defect. It also cited Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Hansmukh Lakshmichand, 2009 SCC OnLine NCDRC 74, which stated that warranty repairs do not establish inherent manufacturing faults. The Commission noted that the manufacturer offered to replace the engine free of charge, which the complainant rejected. Instead of accepting the repair, the complainant left the bike at the service centre for years. It held that the seller fulfilled its warranty obligation by offering repairs and engine replacement. Since the complainant did not cooperate, he could not demand a full vehicle replacement. The Commission said the cost of making the bike roadworthy should not be passed to the complainant, as he had been deprived of its use. The Commission modified the State Commission's order. It directed the manufacturer and dealer to jointly and at no cost replace the engine and make the motorcycle roadworthy. The Commission further held that if the complainant was not satisfied with the bike's condition, he could request an expert inspection. Both sides would equally share the expert's cost. If the expert found faults, the manufacturer and dealer must fix them within one month. Additionally, the Commission ordered ₹50,000 compensation for mental agony and ₹25,000 as litigation costs, with 9% interest per annum on any delay in payment. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly. Case Title: Mr.Ravindra Annappa Bindre Vs. M/s. Royal Enfield A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd. Case Number: R.P. No. 1976 of 2019Click Here To Read/Download The Order

NCDRC Holds Royal Enfield, Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service

Ayushi Rani

Tags