Mysore District Commission Holds Royal Enfield, Its Dealer Liable For Failure To Replace Or Provide Refund For Bike With Defects

Brief Facts:

The Complainant booked a Royal Enfield Himalayan Granite Black BL seat bike from Aadith Motors (“Dealer”), an authorized dealer of Royal Enfield Global. The Complainant paid an initial booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- and subsequently remitted the balance of Rs. 2,93,000/-. The vehicle was delivered on time as requested by the Complainant. However, immediately after filling petrol at a nearby petrol bunk, the Complainant noticed a leak from the petrol tank and smoke emanating from the engine. The Complainant promptly informed the Dealer and returned the vehicle to its showroom, insisting on either rectification or a replacement.

The Complainant argued that despite repeated communications and an email requesting a new vehicle, the Dealer didn't respond satisfactorily. Instead, it urged the Complainant to accept the repaired vehicle. Feeling deeply disappointed and citing heavy reliance on the bike for travel during odd hours, the Complainant insisted on either receiving a new bike or a full refund of Rs. 3,03,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against Royal Enfield and its dealer.

Royal Enfield and its Dealer didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission referred to the evidence provided, including seven photographs of the Royal Enfield bike, where it noted that in two out of the seven photos, the petrol tank was removed. Additionally, the District Commission referred to a CD containing email chats and videos relevant to the complaint. It noted that the Complainant persistently requested either a replacement of the bike or a refund of the entire purchase amount of Rs. 3,03,000/- from the Dealer and Royal Enfield.

The District Commission noted that despite summons, and notices served by it, Royal Enfield did not appear nor contest the proceedings. Consequently, the evidence provided by the Complainant remained uncontested. Further, it noted that the Complainant reported issues upon receiving the bike, including an alleged demonstration model with manufacturing defects such as a bent handle, petrol tank leakage, and observed smoke near the tank. The District Commission held that the actions of Royal Enfield and its Dealer appeared to be deliberate and indicative of a deficiency in service, aimed at deceiving the Complainant.

Therefore, the District Commission directed 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. Failing this, they would be liable to refund the amount of Rs. 3,03,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum. Additionally, Royal Enfield and its Dealer were directed to compensate the Complainant with Rs. 20,000/- for the mental agony caused by their deficient service and to pay Rs. 8,000/- as litigation costs.

Case Title: Sri. Sreejith vs The Manager, Royal Enfield Global and Ors.

Case Number: 325/2023

Date of Pronouncement: 03.06.2024