The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has ordered Piaggio to pay Rs 5.1 lakh to a consumer who purchased a defective commercial goods vehicle to earn his livelihood. In its order dated May 30, the commission ruled that a manufacturer remains liable for inherent manufacturing defects even if the product’s warranty period has expired.
The ruling requires the vehicle manufacturer to refund the complete purchase price of Rs 4.5 lakh to the complainant. Additionally, Piaggio must pay Rs 50,000 in compensation for the mental distress and inconvenience caused, along with Rs 10,000 to cover litigation costs.
Background And Vehicle Deficiencies
The complainant had purchased a Piaggio Porter 1000 goods vehicle on November 13, 2017, after securing a loan from Union Bank. According to the buyer, the vehicle was intended solely for transporting goods to generate an income. However, he soon faced a series of technical issues, including engine foundation defects, poor pickup, oil leakage, abnormal clutch noise, a malfunctioning radiator fan, and noise in the gearbox. Despite multiple service visits, the problems persisted, eventually leading to a complete vehicle breakdown and prompting the legal complaint.
Manufacturer Defence And Expert Assessment
In its defense, Piaggio argued that the vehicle’s warranty—valid for 24 months or 75,000 kilometers—had expired long before the complaint was filed. The company also contended that the vehicle had been involved in an accident and left unused for an extended duration, which likely deteriorated its condition. Furthermore, Piaggio maintained that the buyer had only reported minor issues during regular servicing, which were resolved, and had raised no major complaints during the warranty period. One of the service centers involved also stated that the complainant had never brought the vehicle to their facility.
However, an expert commissioner appointed to inspect the vehicle identified widespread issues, including improper engine settings, repeated engine stalling, heavy vibrations, oil leaks, and poor overall performance relative to the vehicle’s mileage and age.
Commission Ruling And Consumer Recourse
The three-member commission bench, comprising President D B Binu and members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T N, concluded that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects rather than normal wear and tear. The bench emphasized that the vehicle failed to meet reasonable standards of technology, quality, and workmanship. They clarified that the expiration of a warranty does not shield a manufacturer from accountability when evidence confirms that the product’s underlying quality and performance were compromised by manufacturing-related flaws.
