In India, buying a motorcycle is not just about passion or mobility; it is also about compliance. We pay GST, road tax, registration fees, insurance, and multiple other charges, all from money that has already been taxed. In return, we are constantly told that these systems exist to protect consumers, ensure safety, and enforce standards. Yet, when things go wrong, especially involving large brands, the customer is often left completely alone.
This is a real use case of how an authorised service ecosystem failed, how a forged service record put a customer’s safety at risk, and how neither the company nor the system around it treated the issue with the seriousness it demanded.
The nightmare began with a simple, chilling detail: my Royal Enfield motorcycle was virtually* serviced by an authorised dealer, Legend Automotive, Baripada, while it was over 100 KM away. This is not a clerical error; it is an act of forgery and ignorance, evidenced by a False Job Card (RJC004507IJ073XX) and a subsequent False Invoice, both sent from Royal Enfield’s official [email protected] email.
My formal complaint (CAS-96336358-R8Z5XX) was raised on October 28, 2025. Today, after over 30 days of receiving the generic “we are looking into it” response, my motorcycle remains unserviced because the system falsely shows the maintenance has been completed. A local service centre nearby correctly denied the service because the due date (November 19th) had lapsed, and the service was recorded as complete.
This exposes a shocking contradiction and a deep lack of seriousness from a company that sells the concept of reliability and adventure. This is not a service delay; it’s a corporate paralysis that puts my safety, warranty, and investment at direct risk.
Is This Really About Safety or Just About Revenue?
Royal Enfield’s own User Manual explicitly states that timely servicing is critical for the vehicle’s performance, longevity, and, most importantly, safety. Yet, the company’s inaction directly contradicts this foundational principle, suggesting the manual is a tool for revenue, not responsibility.
- The Hypocrisy of Deadlines: If a customer missing a service by one single day is grounds for refusal and potential warranty voidance, how can a delay of over 30 days, caused by the company’s own authorised service centre’s alleged fraud, be considered acceptable?
- Safety vs. Investigation: By actively blocking my mandatory service, the company is forcing me to operate a motorcycle past its critical maintenance deadline. I am being made to bear the risk. Who at Royal Enfield is signing off on this decision to put my safety and the bike’s mechanical integrity at stake?
- The Intent to Charge: This circus clearly shows the company’s lack of intention to honour the free services it committed to at the time of purchase. Is this deliberate tactic designed to ensure that when the issue is finally “resolved,” the customer has to pay for a late/lapsed service?
The Company’s Support System: The 24 to 48-Hour Loop
The customer support system at Royal Enfield is not a solution mechanism; it is a delay tactic designed to exhaust the customer until they give up.
- The Empty Promise: For days, my calls to the support centre have been met with the robotic assurance to “wait for 24-48 hours.” This is a pre-programmed response, not an escalation step.
- Lack of Digital Accountability: In the age of #Internet and #AI, where sophisticated digital tools can track parts, service history, and vehicle location in real-time, how can a major manufacturer like Royal Enfield take over a month to investigate a simple forgery?
- The Cover-Up Suggestion: The attempt by the Baripada, Service Manager, to suggest using a different Chassis Number at the local service centre is not just poor service; it is an overt attempt to tamper with official records and pressure a customer into participating in a fraud cover-up. What penalty will the company levy against an official who suggested this?
Questions for the Government and Regulators
This is not just a company problem. It is a governance problem. Banks have RBI. Financial fraud has fast escalation paths, and the Ombudsman’s office, like an independent body to investigate complaints.
But for automobile consumers?
- Why is there no fast, simple escalation mechanism for service fraud?
- Why must a citizen approach the consumer court for basic protection?
- Where does all the road tax and GST go when enforcement is this weak?
- Why is there no digital, time-bound authority to act against authorised service misuse?
If the government can mandate compliance and taxes, it must also ensure real consumer protection, not just on paper.
Why This Is Being Made Public
It is written because what happened to me can happen to any RE Owner who trusts authorised service systems and official records.
If a motorcycle can be marked as serviced on paper without physically moving, and the customer is penalised instead of protected, then the integrity of the entire authorised service ecosystem deserves serious questioning. Service history is not a casual logbook entry; it directly impacts safety, warranty, and long-term ownership. When those records can be forged or manipulated, trust collapses.
Safety cannot remain a marketing slogan used in owner manuals and advertisements while real riders are left exposed to risk. Free service cannot quietly turn into a trap where systemic delays push customers into paid services. And “please wait 24–48 hours” cannot continue to be the default response to failures that put both vehicles and lives at stake.
Until accountability becomes faster than excuses, every owner is vulnerable, not because they ignored the rules, but because the system failed to follow its own.
