IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 129/S/2012.                            DATED : 05.01.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI RATAN SAHA,

  S/O Sri Satya Ranjan Saha,

  Resident of Vill.- Ranidanga, 

  P.O.- Ranidanga, P.S.- Bagdogra,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.     

O.P.  Nos.      1.                        : HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD.,

  A Company registered under the Companies Act,

  1956, having its registered office at 5^th and 6^th Floor,

  Corporate one (Bani Building), Plot No.-5,

  Commercial Centre, Jasala, New Delhi – 110 076.

                                    2.                     : THE CHAIRMAN,

  Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,

  having his office at 5^th and 6^th Floor,

  Corporate one (Bani Building), Plot No.-5,

  Commercial Centre, Jasala, New Delhi – 110 076.

                                    3.                     : DURGA HYUNDAI,

  Durga Automotives (P) Ltd.,

  a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956,

  having its registered office at Tenzing Norgay Road,

  Dagapur, P.O.- Pradhan Nagar, Dist.- Darjeeling.  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Rathin Sarkar, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that complainant purchased one i10 Sportz vehicle from the OP No.3.  OP No.3 is the authorized dealer of the OP No.1.  The OP No.3 assured the complainant that the said vehicle is giving mileage of 17 to 19 KM per liter of petrol.  Accordingly, the complainant purchased the said vehicle on 20.06.2011.  The same vehicle was registered as WB 74B-6267.  The OPs had given two years warranty on all respect which is started from 20.06.2011 and expired on 19.06.2013.  The complainant found that the said

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

vehicle was giving a poor mileage.  The said vehicle was shown to the Manager of OP No.3 who told that the fuel capacity will automatically increase after first servicing of the said vehicle.  But complainant found that the vehicle had inherent mileage problem for which the complainant has been suffering from the date of purchase.  The complainant then sent notice to the OPs for replacing the complainant’s vehicle with a new model.  Accordingly, the case has been filed before this Forum as OP did not remove the inherent defect of the vehicle or did not change the vehicle by a new one.           

The OPs appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant.  It is stated by the OPs that the complainant had failed to follow the guidelines for use and maintenance of the vehicle.  Accordingly, the OPs submitted for dismissal of the present complaint.

On 20.09.2013, the complainant filed a petition for appointment of expert to determine defect of the vehicle.  The petition was heard on 18.12.2013 and prayer of appointment of Automobile Engineer was allowed on 18.12.2013.  Thereafter, report was filed on 16.06.2015 by ARTO, Siliguri.  Thereafter, both sides led evidence and argument was heard on 03.01.2017. 

Both sides have filed relevant documents in this case.    

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.

2.       Photocopy of Insurance Policy Certificate.

3.       Photocopy of complaint registered for the month of June, 2012.

4.       Photocopy of receipt issued by the maintenance personnel of the OPs dated 26.07.2012.

5.       Photocopy of letter issued by the complainant to the OP No.3 on 06.08.2012.

6.       Photocopy of lawyer notice dated 21.08.2012.

7.       Photocopy of letters dated 06.08.2012 and 31.08.2012.

8.       Original print copy highlights of Hyundai i10, dated 07.09.2016.

          Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.

OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed evidence-in-chief.

          Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument.

OP No.3 has filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

Decision with reason

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

The complainant has adduced evidence on oath verses oath and document verses document and MVI has submitted a report on 16.06.2015.  The report shows average mileage found 17.85 KM/lits.  The procedure of conducting test has also been submit along with the report and forwarded by the ARTO, Siliguri, vide Memo No.613/MV dated 15.06.2015.

In this case, in our hand the allegation of the complainant was shortage of mileage as advertised by the OP.  But the report of ARTO, Siliguri, Govt. of West Bengal, shows that mileage is 17.85 kilometres per litre.  The report supports the OPs contention.  Accordingly, the complainant fails to prove allegation against the OPs. 

In the result, the case fails.         

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.129/S/2012 is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

  -Member-                           -Member-                       -President-