NEW DELHI: The West Bengal state consumer commission has ruled that a motorcycle manufacturer cannot be held responsible for a dealer’s failure to hand over a customer’s registration papers. In its order on Wednesday, the commission set aside the part of an earlier ruling that had made Honda jointly liable along with its dealer, while the charges against the dealer stay as they are.What was the dispute aboutThe complainant bought a motorcycle from Honda’s authorised dealer on 11 October 2018 while paying the full price of Rs 81,977. But despite paying in full and following up repeatedly, he never got the documents needed to legally use the bike — including the Registration Certificate, as per the order.After which the complainant took the matter to the district consumer commission in 2020. Neither the dealer nor Honda showed up to contest the case, so it went ahead without them. In May 2023, the district commission ruled in the complainant’s favour. It ordered the dealer and Honda, jointly, to pay Rs 3,000 in litigation costs and Rs 10,000 as compensation, and also to hand over the documents — or else refund the full amount with 9 per cent yearly interest.However, Honda challenged this order in the state consumer commission while the dealer did not, so the order against him stayed final either way.The counsel for the manufacturer argued that under its dealership agreement, the dealer alone handled registration and paperwork after a sale. He further said that the relationship was “principal-to-principal,” not one where Honda could be blamed for the dealer’s mistakes. Honda also said it was never even told about the complaint before the case was filed.What did the commission sayThe bench comprising Judicial Member Rajes Guha Ray and Member Santanu Saha agreed that the complainant had genuinely suffered and he clearly never got his papers despite paying in full. But the commission pointed out that the real question was who was actually responsible for that failure.The commission found that the complaint was aimed almost entirely at the dealer, with nothing specific alleged against Honda.“Mere impleadment of a manufacturer, without anything more, does not automatically render it jointly liable for every subsequent omission on the part of an authorised dealer,” the commission observed.Since the dealership agreement placed registration duties on the dealer, and there was no proof Honda knew about the lapse, the commission held that blaming a manufacturer “merely because it manufactured the vehicle would be contrary to settled principles governing consumer jurisprudence.”The commission noted it had merely said “necessary direction should be given to O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2,” without explaining why the manufacturer specifically was at fault. It held that “recording of reasons constitutes one of the most fundamental attributes of judicial and quasi-judicial decision-making.”Honda had also argued that the motorcycle, being an older BS-IV model, could no longer be registered under current rules. The commission said this had no bearing on Honda’s liability, and would only matter later, while working out how the dealer must fulfil his obligations.The commission set aside the portion of the order that made Honda jointly liable. Everything else stays unchanged — the dealer must still pay Rs 3,000 in costs, Rs 10,000 in compensation, and refund the full amount with 9 per cent interest if the papers aren’t handed over, since he never challenged the order himself.