Man waited 3 months for a silver Royal Enfield Classic 350 but got a blue one; consumer commission found dealer guilty and ordered it to pay Rs 28,000, with interest

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Kerala has held a Royal Enfield dealer guilty of unfair trade practice after a customer who booked a silver Classic 350 motorcycle was made to take a lagoon blue model following a delay of around three months.The commission, in its October 23 order, also found that the dealer had provided incorrect manufacturing details in the vehicle’s registration certificate. It directed the dealer to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs, with interest on the compensation if payment was delayed.Silver Classic 350 disputeAccording to the commission’s order, the complainant, Krishnakumar S Nair, booked a silver Royal Enfield Classic 350 from Sivaji Motors on September 3, 2016, with a waiting period of 60 days.The complainant alleged that the dealer initially told him the motorcycle would be delivered in the first week of November, but he was later told that delivery would only be possible by November 28. He was asked to make the payment in the meantime so that the paperwork could be completed.However, when he visited the showroom, he was told that the dealer did not have a silver motorcycle in stock and that delivery could take until January 2017.According to the complaint, Nair accepted the lagoon blue colour because he was a defence personnel member who had to leave for his native place to join duty. He paid Rs 99,550 on December 7 and another Rs 40,000 on December 8, 2016.However, when he went to collect the motorcycle on December 12, he alleged that the vehicle was covered in dust and mud and that its front disc brake and handle lock had problems. He was allegedly told that the issues would be addressed during the first servicing.The complainant further alleged that he saw a new silver Classic 350 being delivered to another customer at the showroom, despite having been told that the dealer had no silver bike available. He also claimed that the vehicle’s manufacturing year was incorrectly recorded in the registration documents, which created problems during inspection by the Motor Vehicles Department.According to the complaint, the registration certificate was eventually issued on January 3, 2017.Sivaji Motors denied the allegations. It claimed that the customer had been informed that silver bikes were unavailable and had agreed to take the lagoon blue model. The dealer also denied that the motorcycle was dirty or faulty and sought dismissal of the complaint.The manufacturer, Royal Enfield, did not appear before the commission and was proceeded against ex parte.Commission’s findingThe bench comprising president P V Jayarajan and members Preetha G Nair and Viju V R, examined the booking form, payment receipts, registration certificates and communications produced by the complainant.It noted that the booking form recorded a waiting period of 60 days and that the customer had booked a silver motorcycle. The dealer had not produced stock records or other documents showing the availability of silver and lagoon blue motorcycles at the relevant time.The commission observed that the dealer could have produced its stock register and its records of vehicles received from the manufacturer and sold to customers to support its defence.“Hence, here in this case the opposite party has failed to produce the best evidence available with them and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the opposite parties,” the bench noted.The commission also noted the discrepancy in the manufacturing details recorded in the registration certificate. It found that the customer had been put to further trouble after waiting for around three months and not receiving the colour of motorcycle he had originally booked.“From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party,” it added.However, the commission rejected the request to replace the motorcycle with a new one. It said that a consumer seeking replacement on the ground of a manufacturing defect must establish the defect, including through expert evidence. No such evidence had been produced in this case.The commission also held that the manufacturer could not be made liable merely for the dealer’s actions when no specific allegation or proof established deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the manufacturer’s part.Final orderPartly allowing the complaint, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, directed Sivaji Motors to:Pay Rs 25,000 as compensation.Pay Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs.The total amount ordered was Rs 28,000. The dealer was directed to comply within 30 days of receiving the order. If it failed to do so, the compensation amount, excluding litigation costs, would carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the order until payment.The commission did not order replacement of the motorcycle or a refund of its purchase price.