Consumer protection: Expert opinion crucial for replacing defective vehicle

Ravindra Annappa Bindre paid ₹1,54,762 on October 19, 2015, for a Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350cc motorcycle manufactured by Eicher Motors. Upon delivery, he noticed a sealant tape on the engine and was assured it was normal.  However, oil began leaking during the ride home. 

Bindre immediately returned the motorcycle to the dealer. He subsequently took it to the authorised service centre on several occasions, but the issue persisted. Bindre filed a complaint before the Additional Thane Consumer Forum, alleging that the motorcycle suffered from a manufacturing defect and that there had been gross deficiency in service, rendering the vehicle unusable. 

He sought a refund of the purchase amount or a replacement of the motorcycle, along with a refund of the Regional Transport Office (RTO) registration charges and insurance premium. He also claimed compensation for mental agony. 

The dealer and the manufacturer contested the complaint and denied all allegations. They asserted that the subsequent leakage might have occurred due to Bindre’s failure to follow operational instructions.  

Although they offered to replace the engine, Bindre rejected the offer and demanded replacement of the vehicle. 

The District Forum, in its order dated April 10, 2018, ruled in favour of Bindre and held both the dealer and the manufacturer jointly liable to either replace the motorcycle without any additional payment or refund its full price, including the RTO registration and insurance charges. 

The Forum also awarded compensation and litigation costs. 

The dealer and the manufacturer appealed the decision. In its order dated July 17, 2019, the Maharashtra State Commission set aside the direction to replace the entire vehicle or refund its price. Instead, it directed that only the engine be replaced and the motorcycle be made roadworthy. 

The Commission also instructed that any issues arising from the prolonged idle state of the vehicle be addressed through necessary repairs, the cost of which would be borne by Bindre. However, it upheld the award of compensation and costs. 

Aggrieved by this order, Bindre filed a revision petition before the National Commission. 

He argued that the job cards, photographs, and the manufacturer’s offer to replace the engine established the presence of an inherent manufacturing defect, obviating the need for expert opinion. 

He further contended that the State Commission had gone beyond the pleading and prayers by directing him to bear the cost of repairs, even though the motorcycle had remained with the service centre for more than eight years since November 2015. 

The revision petition was contested on the grounds that, under the law, a replacement or refund could not be granted without an expert opinion from an appropriate laboratory. 

The National Commission, in its order dated June 25, 2025, delivered by J Rajendra, noted that the oil leakage was observed soon after delivery and that the motorcycle was lying with the service centre within four months of purchase. 

Since there was no expert report, the Commission modified the order and directed that the engine be replaced and necessary repairs carried out free of charge to make the vehicle roadworthy. 

It also awarded Bindre compensation of ₹50,000 and costs of ₹25,000. 

The Commission further ruled that if Bindre remained dissatisfied with the replacement and repairs, he could approach the District Forum to appoint an expert for an opinion, whose cost would be shared by both parties. 

Any defect identified by the expert would have to be rectified within one month, failing which compensation of ₹5,000 per day would be payable. 

The writer is a consumer activist