Motorbike service centre fails to fix defect despite multiple repairs, man wins Rs 40,000

A district consumer forum in Kerala has held a Bajaj authorised service centre liable for deficiency in service and awarded a payout of Rs 40,000 after it failed to rectify a motorcycle defect despite multiple repair attempts.

President S K Sreela and member Stanly Harold of the Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that even if other authorised service centres or officials participated in subsequent inspections, such circumstances do not absolve them from liability for the services they had admittedly provided.

“Though the opposite party failed to rectify the defect despite repeated repair attempts, there is no convincing evidence to establish that it deliberately adopted any deceptive or misleading trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The evidence only establishes negligence and deficiency in rendering service,” the June 27 order said.

The complainant is the registered owner of a Bajaj motorcycle, which was reportedly serviced on a regular basis and maintained properly since its purchase. Following a minor accident on December 6, 2024, the vehicle developed a lean towards the left side.

The complainant entrusted the vehicle to Sarathy Bajaj, an authorised service centre, where the handlebar was replaced, and acting on the service advisor’s directions, he replaced the front tyre at his own expense. The service centre also replaced the fork pipes and steering stem with the complainant’s consent.

The defect, however, remained unresolved, prompting the man to repeatedly approach the service centre, where the manager, technicians and even the area service manager inspected the vehicle and failed to identify the actual cause or rectify it.

Based on further instructions from customer care, the vehicle was also taken to another authorised service centre at Kottarakkara, where further inspections, resetting of the front assembly, and replacement of another component were carried out. The defect remained, and the area service manager later suggested replacement of the wheel but admitted that there was no assurance that it would fix the defect.

Story continues below this ad

Complainant vs service centre

The complainant submitted that he had spent approximately Rs 10,000 towards repairs and replacement of parts based on the service centre’s advice, but the original defect persisted.

He also lodged several complaints through email with Sarathy Bajaj’s customer care, but no effective remedy was provided. According to the complainant, the failure of the opposite party to properly diagnose and rectify the defect despite repeated attempts constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The complainant hence sought reimbursement of the repair expenses and compensation of Rs 1 lakh for the financial loss, inconvenience, hardship, and mental agony suffered, along with costs of the proceedings.

Sarathy Bajaj denied that the complainant had immediately reported that the defect continued even after the repairs or that the service advisor admitted any inability to rectify it. The centre also denied that the complainant later returned to the service centre after driving the vehicle for about 700 km or that any mechanic admitted the existence of an unresolved issue.

Story continues below this ad

It stated that the complainant’s email complaints were addressed to the manufacturer, Bajaj Auto Ltd, and not to them. Though the service centre filed a written version disputing the allegations, it neither cross-examined nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in rebuttal. Hence, the complainant’s case remained unchallenged.

No technical proof: Commission

The communications clearly establish that the complainant repeatedly informed the service network that the defect continued even after the replacement of parts.

The emails further disclose that the complainant took the vehicle to another authorised service centre in Kottarakkara, where the manager admitted to the problem, briefly swapped the wheel for testing purposes, and suggested its replacement.

The service centre failed to produce technical inspection reports, service records or any expert evidence to establish that the matter had been resolved.

Rs 40,000 relief

The commission said that though Sarathy Bajaj failed to fix the issue, there is no evidence to indicate that it deliberately adopted any deceptive or misleading trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The evidence only indicates negligence and deficiency in service.

It held that due to the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused, the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of Rs 30,000 as compensation for at 9 per cent per annum from the date of complaint till realisation. It directed the service centre to pay the complainant Rs 10,000 towards the costs of the proceedings within 45 days, failing which execution proceedings could be initiated.

Consumer takeaway

This ruling highlights that an authorised service centre is expected to exercise reasonable skill, care and technical competence while undertaking repairs. Failing to diagnose the defect and requiring the consumer to incur repeated expenditure without resolving the original complaint constitute a service deficiency.

Story continues below this ad

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Kerala helpline:1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.