New Delhi | A consumer in Bengaluru has secured significant relief after a district consumer commission ordered a motorcycle manufacturer and its authorised dealer to refund most of the vehicle’s purchase price due to a recurring mechanical defect that remained unresolved despite repeated repair attempts.
The commission held that the motorcycle suffered from a serious defect that could not be rectified even after multiple visits to the service centre, causing considerable inconvenience and potential safety risks to the owner.
FCRF’s Flagship Cyber Law Certification Returns With a New Four-Week Cohort
The case involved Ganesh J, a resident of Uttarahalli in Bengaluru, who purchased a Hero Xtreme 125R motorcycle on July 1, 2024, from an authorised dealership for ₹98,709. According to the complaint, the motorcycle began experiencing problems within days of purchase, with the engine unexpectedly shutting off while the vehicle was being ridden.
The defect was particularly concerning because the engine stalled while the motorcycle was in motion, creating a risk of accidents and endangering the rider’s safety.
Ganesh initially reported the issue to the dealership and later followed up through email communications. Despite repeated complaints, the problem persisted. Records showed that he visited the service centre more than ten times in an effort to have the defect fixed, but the issue remained unresolved.
During the repair process, several key components of the motorcycle were replaced, including the throttle body, clutch plates, clutch adapter switch, clutch lever, complete wiring kit, key set, fuel pump, fuel injector, and air filter. The throttle body itself was replaced twice. In one instance, a special replacement unit was sourced from the company’s headquarters in Haryana. A member of the manufacturer’s research and development team also inspected the vehicle, but even these efforts failed to eliminate the problem.
The complainant subsequently lodged a grievance on the National Consumer Forum portal, alleging that neither the dealer nor the manufacturer provided an effective response. To support his case, he also submitted video recordings demonstrating the recurring defect before the commission.
The manufacturer and the authorised dealer contested the complaint, arguing that the alleged defect could not be consistently reproduced during joint testing. They maintained that the warranty policy did not provide for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price under any circumstances. According to their submissions, a consumer could not claim replacement or refund merely on the basis of warranty coverage.
However, the commission was not convinced by these arguments. During the proceedings, it noted that the opposite parties had themselves acknowledged in an affidavit that the motorcycle had stalled twice during a test ride of approximately 40 kilometres.
The commission treated this admission as a significant indicator of an inherent defect in the vehicle. It observed that if the motorcycle stalled twice within a 40-kilometre test run, the number of such incidents over the vehicle’s total usage would likely be substantial.
Based on this admission, the commission concluded that further expert evidence was unnecessary. It held that the repeated stalling problem, combined with the failure of multiple repair attempts, clearly demonstrated a manufacturing defect and deficiency in service.
The commission further noted that numerous important components had been replaced over an extended period, yet the core issue remained unresolved. This, it said, showed that the consumer had not received the quality, reliability, and after-sales support reasonably expected from a new vehicle.
Consequently, the commission held the manufacturer and the authorised dealer jointly and severally liable. It directed them to refund ₹88,000 to the complainant upon return of the motorcycle. The amount was calculated after deducting 10 percent depreciation from the original purchase price. In addition, the commission awarded ₹2,000 towards litigation expenses.
The parties were also directed to comply with the order within the prescribed period and submit a compliance report. The ruling is being viewed as an important consumer protection decision, reinforcing the principle that manufacturers and dealers can be held accountable when persistent vehicle defects remain unresolved despite repeated repair efforts.
