Bought a new bike, faced gear trouble in 72 hours: Consumer commission orders service centre to pay Rs 25,000 and repair it or pay more money

Mr Sreejith M from Kadambazhipuram, Palakkad, Kerala bought a brand new motorcycle for Rs 68,762 on May 2, 2025. But just three days later, he discovered a major defect in the gear system; the gears were not shifting up or down properly and at times changing automatically while he was riding, which was dangerous for both him and his passenger.

He got this new motorcycle for work purposes, so the gearbox issue affected him. He said that during the first time the gear got stuck, he was travelling with his mother and barely avoided an accident. This incident left him feeling scared and anxious, making the vehicle unsafe for use.

Right after that, he reported the problem to the service centre and they tried to diagnose the issue but it kept happening. Thus he felt bad as he had to take his brand new bike to the service centre five times within a span of 35 days even before the first free service that was scheduled for June 12, 2025.


On June 17, 2025, he got an SMS from the service centre apologising for the inconvenience and assuring that necessary action will be taken to resolve the issue. However, even after repeated assurances, the service centre failed to repair/replace the defective gear system.

As a result, Sreejith (the motorcycle owner) pointed out the motorcycle spent more time in the service centre than with him, which meant he couldn’t use it. Each time he left the vehicle for repair, the service centre provided him with a different second-hand motorcycle to use in the meantime.

Eventually, the service center took back the second-hand bikes on several occasions for resale, leaving him without any vehicle and causing further hardship and inconvenience.

Despite repeated complaints, the defects have not been rectified, and so he filed a consumer complaint with the Palakkad district consumer commission on August 21, 2025. The motorcycle was in the service centre till the date of filing of this complaint.

He said that the bike’s gear malfunctioning, like not shifting properly and having random gear changes while riding, posed a safety hazard and constituted a defect under the Consumer Protection Act, He believed the service center didn’t take proper care of the vehicle or follow the warranty terms.

He claimed that the service centre’s failure to rectify/repair the bike amounted to deficiency in service.

On January 22, 2026 he won the case in consumer commission. Advocate Muhammed Ansar K.P represented him.

Palakkad district consumer commission analysis and discussion

Mr Vinay Menon V., President, Smt.Vidya A., Member and Mr Krishnankutty N.K., Member of the district consumer commission passed this judgement on January 22, 2026.

Without expert inspection report highlighting the defect, manufacturer is not liable

The consumer commission said that the complainant (Sreejith.M) states that by selling a vehicle with a latent defect either mechanical or manufacturing and representing it as brand new, the opposite parties have engaged in misrepresentation and unfair trade practice.

But the complainant did not take out any Expert Commissioner to inspect the vehicle and to find out that there is some manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

The consumer commission said: “In the absence of expert opinion, we are not inclined to allow the prayers (a) (b) for the refund of purchase price of the bike or replacement of the vehicle with a brand new one of the same model.”

Vehicle’s service centre has provided a deficient service

The consumer commission said that the complainant’s (Sreejith.M) main grievance is that the 2nd opposite party (service centre) did not provide proper and timely service to the complainant’s vehicle. According to him, each time he brought the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party, they kept the vehicle for a long time and returned it without rectifying the defect.

The 2nd opposite party (service centre) did not appear or file a version. So, there is no evidence contradicting the contention of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the reply from the 2nd opposite party (service centre) acknowledging the issues in the vehicle and assurance to address and resolve the issue as early as possible.

But according to the complainant (Sreejith.M), the 2nd opposite party did not resolve the issue.

The consumer commission said: “So, there is deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to compensate the complainant for that. The complainant had suffered mental agony, financial loss and inconveniences due to the acts of the 2nd opposite party.”

Judgement

• In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.
• We direct the 2nd opposite party to rectify the issues in the vehicle and make it in roadworthy condition or in the alternative to pay Rs 25,000 as cost of the repair.
• To pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for their deficiency in service and Rs 5,000 as cost of the litigation.
• Since the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect, the 1st opposite party (vehicle manufacturer) is exonerated from any liability.
• The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs 500 as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment. Pronounced in open court on the 22nd day of January, 2026.