Pranav B Prem

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising AVM J. Rajendra (Retd.) and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, held Royal Enfield and its dealer jointly liable for deficiency in service concerning the sale of a motorcycle that suffered repeated oil leakage issues from the day of its delivery. The Commission observed that while expert evidence to establish a manufacturing defect was lacking, the persistent issues and lack of use justified compensation and free engine replacement.

Also Read: Uttarakhand State Commission Dismisses Deficiency In Service Complaint Against Uttarakhand Power Corporation

Background of the Case

The complainant, Mr. Ravindra Annappa Bindre, purchased a new Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350cc motorcycle on October 19, 2015, from the authorised dealer in Navi Mumbai. On the very day of delivery, he noticed sealant tape on the engine and was informed that it was normal. However, on his way home, engine oil began leaking significantly. He took the vehicle back to the authorised service centre, and though the vehicle underwent repairs multiple times—immediately after delivery, after the first free service, and subsequently—the leakage continued to occur. The complainant claimed that the motorcycle had a manufacturing defect that made it unsuitable for long-distance use.

He approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navi Mumbai, seeking either a replacement of the motorcycle or a full refund of ₹1,54,762 along with RTO charges and insurance costs. He also sought ₹5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹25,000 in litigation expenses.

District Forum’s Order

The District Forum found both the dealer and the manufacturer guilty of deficiency in service. It directed them to either replace the vehicle with a brand new one at no additional cost, including RTO and insurance, or refund the full purchase price along with ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 as litigation costs. The Forum held that the complainant had suffered recurring problems despite multiple repairs and was therefore entitled to relief. The claim against the authorised service centre was dismissed.

Appeal before the State Commission

Aggrieved by the District Forum’s directions, the dealer and Royal Enfield filed an appeal before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission, in its order dated July 17, 2019, modified the relief granted. It overturned the direction to replace the motorcycle or refund its price, and instead directed the dealer and the manufacturer to replace the engine and make the motorcycle roadworthy. Additionally, it permitted them to charge the complainant for repairs of any defects that had developed due to the vehicle being stored unused at the service centre since 2015. However, the State Commission upheld the compensation and litigation costs awarded by the District Forum.

Arguments Before the National Commission

The complainant approached the NCDRC through a revision petition, contending that the State Commission had erred in diluting the relief granted by the District Forum. He argued that the continuous leakage from the engine, which was evident from the service records and photographs, clearly indicated a manufacturing defect. He also pointed out that the manufacturer’s own willingness to replace the engine supported this claim. The complainant maintained that requiring expert evidence was unnecessary in such a clear case and that he should not be penalised for refusing to accept partial repair solutions.

Also Read: Possession Delayed, Compensation Awarded: Delhi State Commission Rules Against Parsvnath Developers

On the other hand, the dealer and Royal Enfield denied any inherent defect in the motorcycle. They admitted to attending to the oil leakage under warranty and asserted that all necessary repairs had been performed promptly. They argued that the complainant had refused further assistance, including a free engine replacement, and instead abandoned the vehicle at the service centre, causing further deterioration. They stressed that in the absence of expert opinion under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a manufacturing defect could not be presumed. They cited several precedents, including Classic Automobiles v. Lila Nand Mishra [R.P. Nos.374 375 of 2005] and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Hansmukh Lakshmichand [2009 SCC Online NCDRC 74], to reinforce that repeated repairs do not by themselves prove a manufacturing defect.

Findings and Final Directions of the NCDRC

The NCDRC agreed that the complainant had not produced any expert evidence to conclusively establish a manufacturing defect. The Commission reiterated that under Section 13(1)(c) of the 1986 Act, expert analysis is essential where the defect is not visibly determinable. However, it acknowledged that the complainant had experienced repeated oil leakage issues from the time of delivery and was deprived of the motorcycle’s use for several years, which justified compensation.

The Commission noted that Royal Enfield had offered to replace the engine at no cost, but the complainant declined the offer and insisted on a full replacement of the motorcycle. The NCDRC held that offering engine replacement fulfilled the warranty obligations, and since the complainant did not cooperate, he could not demand a complete vehicle replacement. Nevertheless, the Commission modified the State Commission’s order by removing the direction that the complainant should bear the cost of repairs for the vehicle’s deterioration while at the service centre.

Ultimately, the NCDRC directed Royal Enfield and the dealer to jointly replace the engine and bring the motorcycle to a fully roadworthy condition at no cost to the complainant. If the complainant was dissatisfied with the vehicle’s condition upon delivery, he was given the liberty to approach the District Forum for an expert inspection. Both parties would equally bear the cost of such an inspection. If faults were found, the manufacturer and dealer were directed to rectify them within a month.

Also Read: Hair Transplant Without License: DHI Asian Roots Held Liable For Negligence, Directed To Refund ₹5 Lakh

Furthermore, the Commission enhanced the compensation, directing the opposite parties to pay ₹50,000 for mental agony and ₹25,000 as litigation costs within a month. In case of delay, the amount would carry simple interest at 9% per annum. If repairs were further delayed, the manufacturer and dealer would have to pay an additional ₹5,000 per month until the vehicle was fully functional. The revision petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.

Appearance

For the Petitioner: Mr.Viraj Kadam, Advocate (VC)

For Respondents: Ms. Saumya Pandey & Mr. Varoon Biyani, Advocates

Cause Title: Mr.Ravindra Annappa Bindre V. M/s. Royal Enfield A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.

Case No: R.P. No. 1976 of 2019

Coram: Hon'ble AVM J Rajendra AVSM, VSM (Retd) [Presiding Member], Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta [Member]