Mysore District Commission Holds Royal Enfield Liable for Service Inadequacies

July 4, 2024

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mysore, Karnataka, comprising A.K. Naveen Kumari (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member), and Maruthi Vaddar (Member), determined Royal Enfield and its dealer responsible for service inadequacies. This decision arose from their delivery of a Himalayan Granite bike with a petrol leak in the tank and engine smoke. Additionally, they did not take steps to offer a refund or replacement for the bike.

Summary of Facts

The complainant reserved a Royal Enfield Himalayan Granite Black BL seat bike from Aadith Motors, an authorized dealer of Royal Enfield Global. They initially paid Rs. 10,000/- as a booking amount and subsequently settled the balance of Rs. 2,93,000/-. The vehicle was delivered promptly at the complainant’s request. However, soon after refueling at a nearby petrol station, the complainant noticed a petrol leak from the tank and smoke coming from the engine. Immediately informing the dealer, the complainant returned the bike to the showroom, demanding either repairs or a replacement.

The complainant contended that despite numerous attempts to communicate, including an email requesting a replacement vehicle, the dealer’s response was unsatisfactory. Instead, they pressured the complainant to accept the repaired bike. Expressing deep disappointment and emphasizing their reliance on the bike for travel during unconventional hours, the complainant insisted on either receiving a new bike or a full refund amounting to Rs. 3,03,000/-. Frustrated by the situation, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against Royal Enfield and its dealer with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mysore, Karnataka (“District Commission”).

Findings of the District Commission

The District Commission reviewed the evidence presented, which included seven photographs of the Royal Enfield bike. It observed that two of these photos showed the petrol tank removed. Additionally, the Commission referenced a CD containing email exchanges and relevant videos related to the complaint. It highlighted that the complainant consistently sought either a replacement for the bike or a full refund of the entire purchase amount of Rs. 3,03,000 from both the dealer and Royal Enfield.

The District Commission observed that despite being summoned and served notices, Royal Enfield did not appear to contest the proceedings. Consequently, the evidence presented by the complainant remained uncontested. The Commission further noted that the complainant reported issues upon receiving the bike, alleging it was a demonstration model with manufacturing defects such as a bent handle, petrol tank leakage, and smoke observed near the tank. The District Commission concluded that the actions of Royal Enfield and its dealer appeared deliberate and indicated a deficiency in service aimed at misleading the complainant.

Therefore, the District Commission ordered Royal Enfield and its dealer to provide a new Royal Enfield Himalayan Granite Bike to the complainant within two months from the date of the order. Failure to comply would result in them being liable to refund the amount of Rs. 3,03,000/- along with 9% interest per annum. Additionally, Royal Enfield and its dealer were directed to compensate the complainant with Rs. 20,000/- for the mental distress caused by their deficient service and pay Rs. 8,000/- as litigation costs.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in