Brand-new Royal Enfield had defects on first ride, buyer wins over Rs 2.3 lakh

NEW DELHI: A consumer commission in Kerala's Thrissur has held Royal Enfield and its authorised dealer guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after finding that a brand-new motorcycle sold to a buyer had several defects from the very beginning. The commission said the motorcycle was not in the expected condition of a new vehicle and directed the manufacturer and dealer to jointly pay over Rs 2.3 lakh.Why did the buyer approach the commission?The complainant booked a new Royal Enfield motorcycle in November 2016 after being assured that it was of superior quality. He paid around Rs 1.32 lakh for the vehicle, including amounts financed through a loan, and took delivery on December 12, 2016, according to the commission's order.The buyer claimed that immediately after taking delivery and during the first test ride, he noticed several defects in the motorcycle. He alleged that the bike had alignment issues, damaged paint, rust on the wheel drum and corrosion on the silencer. Suspecting that the motorcycle may have been affected by the Chennai floods, he sought its replacement. However, the dealer allegedly refused and told him that the defects would be rectified during the first service. He later approached the police, the Regional Transport Office and eventually the consumer commission after receiving no relief."The complainant requested replacement of the vehicle, but the staff of the 1st opposite party refused, stating that the defects would be rectified during the first periodic service and advised the complainant not to use the vehicle," the order reads.However, the dealer denied that any defects existed at the time of delivery and claimed that the buyer never produced the motorcycle before its authorised service centre for inspection. The manufacturer argued that under its warranty, it was only required to repair or replace defective parts and not replace the entire motorcycle or refund its price.Why did the commission hold the dealer and manufacturer liable?The bench comprising President C T Sabu and members Sreeja S and Ram Mohan R noted that the buyer had complained to the police and the Regional Transport Office within a week of taking delivery of the motorcycle. It said these complaints were made much before the consumer case was filed and supported his claim that the defects existed from the very beginning."The expert commissioner inspected the motorcycle after it had covered only 508 kilometres... The expert commissioner has specifically concluded that such defects are not expected in a brand-new motorcycle."The commission relied on the findings of an independent expert commissioner, who found wheel misalignment, continuous handle vibration, bent components, corrosion, oil leakage, colour deterioration and other defects. It observed that the dealer had failed to produce any expert evidence to contradict these findings."Mere denial in the written version cannot displace an independent expert opinion, particularly when it is corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence," the bench observed.The commission also rejected the dealer's reliance on its pre-delivery inspection report, saying an internal document could not outweigh the findings of an independent expert. While it said there was no direct evidence to prove that the motorcycle had been damaged in the Chennai floods, it held that the defects found were completely inconsistent with a new motorcycle."The conduct of the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties, in supplying a vehicle which was not in a condition expected of a new motorcycle and thereafter failing to satisfactorily explain the defects established by independent expert evidence, constitutes deficiency in service... Further, representing and selling such a vehicle as a new motorcycle amounts to an unfair trade practice," the commission concluded.The commission directed Royal Enfield to refund the motorcycle's purchase price of Rs 1,13,573 with 9 per cent annual interest from November 30, 2016. It also directed the dealer to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and financial hardship, while both parties were ordered to jointly pay Rs 20,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 2.3 lakh.