Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds Motorcycle Dealer Liable for Unresolved Defects, Awards ₹30,000 Compensation

February 27, 2026 : The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur has held a motorcycle dealer guilty of deficiency in service for failing to rectify persistent defects in a vehicle despite repeated servicing, and directed payment of compensation to the complainant.

The Bench comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member) and Ram Mohan R. (Member) passed the order on February 27, 2026, while allowing a complaint filed under Section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The complainant, a coolie worker, had purchased a “Hero Passion Pro 110 Black Disc” motorcycle on January 6, 2021 for ₹87,000 from the dealer. Soon after purchase, the vehicle began showing multiple defects, including a faulty fuel gauge, difficulty in fuel filling, poor running performance, overheating, and instability at speeds around 60 km/h.

Despite undergoing several services between January 2021 and November 2022 at the dealer’s workshop, the issues remained unresolved. Service records placed on record showed that the vehicle was repeatedly brought in for repairs, but the defects persisted.

Notices were issued to both the dealer and the manufacturer. However, neither appeared before the Commission or filed a response, leading to ex-parte proceedings.

The complainant relied on documentary evidence along with an expert report obtained through a Commissioner appointed by the forum. The expert report confirmed that:

the fuel gauge was faulty and gave unstable readings,
the fuel tank did not allow smooth filling and caused fuel loss,
the vehicle lost control at around 60 km/h, and
the engine overheated even under moderate use.

Based on these findings, the Commission held that the dealer had failed to effectively rectify the defects despite multiple opportunities. It observed that such failure clearly amounted to deficiency in service.

With respect to the manufacturer, the Commission noted that no specific role or manufacturing defect had been established. The expert report also did not attribute the issues to any manufacturing fault. Accordingly, the complaint against the manufacturer was dismissed as not proved.

Taking into account that the defects arose within a short period of purchase and remained unresolved, the Commission held that the complainant had suffered significant hardship and inconvenience.

The complaint was allowed against the dealer, who was directed to pay: