When Mr Arun from Kadukutty Village, Chalakudy Taluk, bought his new two-wheeler bike on February 6, 2021, for Rs 87,000, he faced multiple issues with it. One major issue was that the bike’s meter wasn’t functioning properly. Other issues included the fuel tank filling mechanism which apparently could only be filled at a slow pace and engine over-heating.
He also said that the bike was not running smoothly. The company authorised bike dealer assured him that all these issues that he had raised would be fixed during the first service. However, the issues were not fixed in the first service or the following ones.
Thus feeling aggrieved, Arun filed a case with the Thrissur district consumer commission. To support his contentions, he asked an expert commissioner to check the bike.
An expert commissioner checked the bike and reported that:
- The fuel level gauge of the bike is faulty and that the readings it exhibits are unsteady.
- The fuel tank of the bike does not permit easy and smooth filling and causes loss of fuel as well.
- The vehicle loses control at a speed of about 60 km/hr, and
- The engine gets over-heated even when the bike travels just 60 km, and hence its cooling system isn’t effective.
Mr C.T. Sabu, President, Smt. Sreeja. S., Member and Mr Ram Mohan R., Member of the Thrissur district consumer commission heard his case (number: CC 172/21filed on 21/04/2021) and also read the expert commissioner’s report on April 21, 2021 and passed their judgement in Arun’s favour on February 27, 2026.
The consumer commission ordered the dealer to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as cost to Arun.
Why did he win the case?
Advocate Gaurav Gaur practicing in the Delhi High Court said to
ET Wealth Onlinethat Arun (the consumer) succeeded in this case primarily because he supported his allegations with strong documentary evidence and most importantly, an independent expert report which conclusively established defects in the vehicle.
Gaur says that the service records further demonstrated that despite multiple repair attempts, the dealer failed to rectify the issues, thereby amounting to clear deficiency in service. Additionally, the opposite parties remained ex-parte and did not rebut the evidence, which further strengthened the complainant’s case.
According to Gaur, this order highlights that in technical consumer disputes, expert evidence can play a decisive role. It also underscores the importance for consumers to maintain proper documentation, consistently report defects and clearly establish whether the issue pertains to service deficiency or a manufacturing defect.
Consumer commission order and discussion
The Consumer Commission had issued notice to both the dealer and manufacturer. The first opposite party (dealer) did not care to file their written version despite receiving the Commission’s notice to that effect. Notice to the second opposite party (manufacturer) was returned with postal endorsement “addressee left”.
When a notice by way of newspaper publication was issued, this also elicited no response. Hence, the Consumer Commission had to proceed ex-parte against both the opposite parties.
The consumer commission said that the expert commission’s report, substantiates Arun’s allegations that the dealer was not able to productively rectify the defects of the bike, despite the numerous services carried out by them. This constituted deficiency in service on their part.
However, since the expert commissioner did not state whether the defects with the bike is due to any manufacturing fault or not, the manufacturer can’t be said to have provided a deficient product.Hence, the complaint against them remained unproved.
So, the only deficiency proved was that of the dealer and accordingly, the consumer commission passed it order.
The consumer commission said that there is deficiency in the service provided by the dealer as a new bike in a short span of less than two years developed such issues. The consumer commission said that the dealer has not cared to productively cure the defects.
As a result, the complaint was allowed against the first opposite party (dealer), and the first opposite party was directed to pay the complainant (Arun):
- A sum of Rs 20,000 towards compensation for the agony, hardship and financial loss he underwent, and
- A sum of Rs 10,000 towards costs, both with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization. The first opposite party (dealer) was told to comply with the above direction within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
