“After-sales service is not an act of benevolence extended by a manufacturer or dealer; it forms an integral part of the consumer transaction,” the commission said on September 3. It added that repeated temporary repairs without an effective solution to a recurring defect could not be regarded as satisfactory discharge of that obligation.
The dispute began after Selvina purchased the scooter in September 2025. According to her complaint, within seven days of the purchase, the vehicle suddenly stopped on a road. The complainant said a serious accident was narrowly avoided that day, and she had to transport the scooter to the showroom in a goods autorickshaw, spending Rs 2,500. The vehicle was returned after about a month, she said, but developed defects again within four days and was once more entrusted with the opposite party (dealer) for repairs.
Scooter bought for son’s daily commute
The scooter was primarily purchased for Selvina’s son to travel to his ITI classes. With the vehicle unavailable, he had to take three or four buses to reach his institution by 8 am, according to the complaint.
Selvina told the commission that she was an elderly widow and had arranged the money through borrowings and by pledging her belongings. She alleged that instead of providing the expected convenience of a new vehicle, the scooter left her repeatedly travelling to the showroom to seek repairs.
She also alleged that the opposite party did not respond to her telephone calls, forcing her to make repeated visits. According to her evidence, each trip involved travelling by about four buses and spending around Rs 300 to Rs 400. The commission recorded the allegations.
Story continues below this ad
Dealer did not challenge evidence
The commission noted that the opposite party entered appearance but did not file its version. Selvina prosecuted the complaint herself, filed a proof affidavit and was examined. The opposite party neither cross-examined her nor produced evidence to show that the scooter was free of defects, that the breakdowns resulted from misuse or that an effective permanent repair had been carried out.
The commission said a consumer buying a brand-new vehicle for substantial consideration is entitled to expect it to be reasonably reliable, roadworthy and fit for its intended purpose. A vehicle that becomes non-functional within days, requires repeated trips to a service centre and develops defects soon after repair, it said, cannot reasonably be regarded as providing the expected standard of service and utility.
Holding that Selvina had established a deficiency in service, the commission said that making her continue with a vehicle that had repeatedly failed would not provide an effective remedy. It hence ordered a refund against the return of the vehicle. The commission awarded Rs 1,32,203 based on the documented payments of Rs 1,21,499, Rs 2,999 and Rs 7,705, besides Rs 25,000 compensation for mental agony, physical hardship and inconvenience and Rs 5,000 towards proceedings costs.
Takeaway
If you are seeking relief over a defective product or poor service, simply narrating the problem may not be enough. The Kollam commission’s order underlines the importance of supporting your complaint with documentary and oral evidence, including relevant service records, repair or job cards, photographs, correspondence and, where required, appearing for cross-examination.
Story continues below this ad
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Don’t miss out on these stories:
LIC rejects death claim citing ‘non-disclosure’ of hole in heart, man’s father wins Rs 5 lakh
Bought 4 kg onions but ‘scale showed just 3.5 kg’, Punjab man wins Rs 20,000 payout
Train ‘delayed’ by nearly 9 hours, Jharkhand man wins Rs 35,000 payout from railways
