The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Coimbatore has recently issued a directive against Royal Enfield and its authorized dealer, Bharat Automotives, mandating them to compensate a consumer with ₹5.1 lakh. This ruling follows a complaint regarding a defective Continental GT 650 motorcycle. The decision was rendered by a bench consisting of President P Dakshanamoorthy and Member G Suguna, who identified persistent defects in the motorcycle that were not resolved despite multiple warranty repairs.
Deficiency in Service
The Commission determined that the actions of both the manufacturer and the dealer amounted to a deficiency in service. Consequently, they were ordered to pay ₹5 lakh for mental anguish, hardships, and incidental expenses, alongside ₹10,000 to cover litigation costs. The complainant, Uthresh Gobu, is an advocate based in Coimbatore who purchased the motorcycle in May 2022.
Persistent Defects
According to Gobu’s complaint, the motorbike exhibited defects shortly after purchase, including recurring mechanical and electrical failures. These issues affected components such as the instrument cluster, keyset, suspension system, throttle body, electrical wiring, sensors, exhaust pipes, and silencers. Notably, the instrument cluster was replaced six times due to malfunctions and fogging, while the keyset was replaced three times. Despite these replacements, the defects persisted.
Impact on Resale Value
The frequent replacement of the instrument cluster resulted in inconsistent odometer readings, negatively impacting the motorcycle’s resale value. Service records revealed that the bike was serviced in various cities, including Coimbatore, Pune, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Noida, New Delhi, and Kullu, spending over 294 days in service centers during the ownership period.
Professional and Personal Disruption
The complainant argued that the repeated breakdowns and extended repair durations significantly disrupted his professional obligations in different cities, causing mental distress and incurring additional expenses. The complaint also highlighted issues in the purchasing and registration process, alleging that Bharat Automotives overcharged the insurance premium at delivery and registered the complainant’s name incorrectly, leading to an erroneous spelling in the Registration Certificate (RC).
More Read
Commission’s Verdict
The Commission, after reviewing the evidence, concluded on May 6 that the continued failures and inability to rectify defects constituted a clear deficiency in service. Therefore, compensation was awarded to the complainant, with an interest clause of 12% per annum if the payment is delayed beyond two months.
Legal representation for the complainant was provided by Advocate R Sivakumar and his team.
