A simple purchase meant to ease daily travel turned into a frustrating battle for a Kerala man, ending only after the consumer court stepped in. The case highlights a familiar problem for many buyers, where repeated service visits fail to resolve persistent faults, leaving consumers with little option but to seek legal remedy.
A new bike with recurring problems
The complainant, a daily wage worker, had bought a Hero Passion Pro 110 in January 2021. Instead of a smooth ownership experience, the bike soon began to show multiple issues. The fuel gauge did not function properly, refuelling was inconvenient, and the vehicle suffered from overheating. There were also complaints of poor riding quality and instability at around 60 kmph, raising concerns about safety on the road.
Despite several visits to the dealer for servicing, the problems did not go away. Each attempt to fix the motorcycle brought temporary hope, but no lasting solution. Over time, the situation turned into a cycle of unresolved complaints.
Also Read | Six seats, longer range—Tesla Model Y L hits India market
What the commission found
When the matter reached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, an expert inspection confirmed that the motorcycle did indeed have technical faults, particularly in the fuel system and overall performance. The Commission noted that the dealer had multiple opportunities to address the issues but failed to resolve them effectively. This repeated failure was held to be a clear case of deficiency in service. The dealer and other parties did not present a defence, and the case proceeded based on the available evidence.
Also Read | Karnataka to move Supreme Court against bike taxi clearance
Why the dealer was held liable
The Commission made an important distinction while delivering its verdict. It found no clear evidence of a manufacturing defect and, therefore, did not assign responsibility to Hero MotoCorp. Instead, the focus remained on the dealer’s inability to provide proper after-sales service. The final order directed the dealer to pay ₹20,000 as compensation, along with ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. The amount will also carry interest until it is fully paid.
The ruling sends a clear message that repeated servicing without actual resolution is not acceptable. For consumers, it reinforces the idea that persistent defects and poor service can be challenged and that the law does provide a way to seek accountability when things go wrong.
