Back
Dealer's Repair Fiasco Costs ₹30,000: Thrissur Commission Rules on Faulty Hero Bike
In a clear win for consumer rights, the has directed local motorcycle dealer to pay ₹30,000 in compensation and costs to buyer Arun, a daily wage coolie worker. The bench, led by President Sri. C.T. Sabu alongside Members Smt. Sreeja S. and Sri. Ram Mohan R., found the dealer guilty of under the , for failing to fix persistent defects in a new Hero Passion Pro 110 despite multiple service visits. The manufacturer, , was let off due to lack of evidence against it. Proceedings went as neither party appeared.
From Dream Ride to Nightmare Commute
Arun shelled out ₹87,000 on , for the gleaming black Hero Passion Pro 110 (KL64 J 8781) from near Chalakudy. But joy turned sour fast. The bike's meter failed, the fuel tank filled sluggishly causing spills and waste, and it struggled with smooth running. Worse, an expert later confirmed instability at 60 km/hr speeds, overheating after just 60 km, and a defective cooling system.
Despite promises, the dealer botched repairs across six services—from , to —as evidenced by receipts (Ext. A3 series). Frustrated, Arun filed CC 172/21 on , seeking compensation for agony, hardship, and financial loss. An expert commissioner’s report (Ext. C1), appointed on the complainant's request, nailed the persistent faults.
One-Sided Battle: Buyer's Claims vs. Dealer's Silence
Arun argued the defects emerged immediately post-purchase, with the dealer assuring fixes during services that never materialized—classic . He backed it with the registration certificate (Ext. A1), purchase receipt (Ext. A2), and service estimates stamped "cash received."
The opposite parties? Absent. ignored notices, and Hero Motocorp's notice bounced back unserved. Even newspaper publication for drew blanks. No version statement, no defense—just silence, leading to proceedings.
Expert Scrutiny Exposes Deep-Rooted Flaws
The commission zeroed in on whether faults were proven and compensation due. Ext. C1 was damning: unsteady fuel gauge readings, tricky tank filling with fuel loss, control loss at 60 km/hr, and overheating despite short runs signaling cooling failure. These corroborated Arun's claims, proving the dealer's repeated services were futile.
Crucially, no manufacturing defect was pinned, and Arun didn't specify Hero Motocorp's role or prior complaints to them. Liability stuck solely to the dealer for shoddy service.
Key Observations
The bench's pointed findings, drawn directly from the order:
"The Expert report... substantiates the complainant’s allegations that the first opposite party was not able to productively rectify the defects of the vehicle, despite the numerous services effectuated by them. It constitutes on their part."
"The vehicle exhibited the reported faults, in a short span of less than 2 years of purchase. Yet, the first opposite party has not cared to productively cure the same."
"The wrong doing on the part of the first opposite party might certainly have... inflicted agony and hardship on the complainant."
No precedents were cited, but the ruling hinges on core Consumer Protection Act principles for service providers.
Compensation with a Sting: ₹30K Plus Interest
The commission allowed the complaint against , ordering:
"a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for the agony, hardship and financial loss he underwent, and b) a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards costs, both with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization."
Payment due within 45 days of the , order. This sets a precedent for holding dealers accountable for post-sale service lapses, especially for low-income buyers reliant on vehicles for livelihood. Future cases may lean on expert reports to bridge evidence gaps in consumer disputes.
