Yamaha Saluto RX shows defects within 30 days of purchase, court asks maker to refund or replace bike

“The complainant purchased the said motorcycle from India Yamaha in 2019 by paying Rs 52,680. It is a specific case of the complainant that, soon after the purchase of said motorcycle, various manufacturing defects started occurring. Respondent No. 1 approached the respondents many times, but they failed to resolve the said defects,” the bench noted in the June 4 order.

Purchase of bike, issues crop up

• The matter originated from a complaint filed by a man regarding his newly purchased Yamaha Saluto RX bike. On April 9, 2019, the complaint brought Yamaha Saluto RX bike at a cost of Rs 52,680. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, the company had given a manufacturing warranty to the complainant.
• According to the plea, various manufacturing defects started occurring within 30 days of purchase of said vehicle, i.e., shocker leakage, powder coating peeling off from various critical safety parts, rusting of handle in the second month of purchase, and stainless steel parts getting rusted.
• He claimed that from September 22, 2019, the self-start stopped working, the bike began to stall on the way, and the kick start also did not work often. Besides, dust was getting accumulated in the odometer.
• The complainant reported the defects to the brand, but no solution was allegedly provided. He claimed that all these defects clearly show a manufacturing issue, and sent several emails for the resolution of the problem, but each time, they advised visiting the dealership instead providing a resolution, the plea stated.
• After the district consumer commission directed India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd to replace the vehicle with a new one or refund the invoice amount after deduction of 20 per cent of the invoice amount within 30 days, the company challenged the order.

‘Not manufacturing defect’

However, the opposite party (India Yamaha Motor) submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant pertains to the catching of rust on parts of the motorcycle, and the same cannot be termed as a manufacturing defect.

Its counsel Ritika Garg urged that there was no manufacturing defect in the said motorcycle because during the initial two services of said motorcycle, the respondent did not raise any defect or problem.

She submitted that despite repeated requests and reminders issued by the appellant, the respondent failed to approach the authorised dealer for inspection and repair of the said motorcycle.

The complainant, meanwhile, contended that the order passed by the district consumer commission did not warrant any interference.