Present      (1) Sri Nisha Nath Ojha

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)

                        President

                       (2) Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                             Member

         Date of Order-    01.06.2015

                                                   ORDER

Nisha Nath Ojha

1. The complainant approached this forum for following reliefs                against Opposite Parties:-

1. To direct the Opposite parties to replace the CT100 Deluxe Bajaj Motor
2. To direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 45,000/-(Forty five thousand only) as compensation.
3. To direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty thousand only) by way of loss due to mileage of vehicle. 

2. The complainant has made following averment and             submissions in his complaint:-

1. The complainant purchased the motorcycle a two wheeler (CT100 Deluxe Model) bearing Reg. No. BR-GD-1507 on 03.12.14 from Auto Syndicate, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001 (Opposite party No.1) During the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle, the Opposite party no.1 assured the complainant that mileage of this vehicle is about 101  km/l and also has been shown the advertisement of the Opposite party no.2( i.e. company)
2. The complainant found that the mileage of the aforesaid vehicle is about 30 to 40 km/l. Then the complainant approached the service centre several times and the service centre issued several service job card as 4475, 0681, 7938, 1344, 1942 and 4059.
3. The aforesaid service cards stating therein that the mileage of the vehicle has been 30 to 40 km/l and the engine of the vehicle is defective.

1. The Opposite Parties in their Joint reply as well as written statement have submitted the following facts:

1. The compliant petition which has been filed by the complainant is not maintainable because after continuously and extensively using the vehicle for nearly 2 years filed this complaint on 23.11.2006. The opponents have backed the vehicle for 2 years of free warranty services which will expire on 02.12.06, hence just few days before the expiry date of 2 years of free warranty services and the 2 years of limitation for any complaint for filling before the Forum was coming to end, he has rushed and filed this complaint. Therefore more than any genuine grievance it is a speculative litigation filed so that under the pressure of this false complaint he can extract more and more free services from the complainant. Hence this complaint requires to be dismissed with cost on this ground alone.  
2. The vehicle has been given all the warranty services. During the services it is found that the complainant has also violated the condition of usage of the vehicle which is stated in the book-let/Owner’s Manual which is given to the complainant at the time of purchase of the aforesaid vehicle. Therefore the complainant himself is responsible for not getting an ideal average because he has not kept the vehicle properly.
3. It is stated that the complainant alleged in this complaint that he is getting less fuel average i.e. instead of fuel average of 101kmpl he is getting only 30kmpl. This sole allegation is not proper and correct, due to various reasons enumerated below, further the number of services rendered during the free warranty services which is a routine services has been twisted and shown as if it there is some problem in the vehicle and hence attended etc, which is not so, it was routine services at a periodical intervals was required to be done for the good performance of the vehicle and to keep the vehicle in tip-top condition. Therefore the complainant cannot find fault with the vehicle or with the opponents.
4. The fuel average of any vehicle for that matter depends on various external factors on which the complainant do not have any control i.e. the number of start and stops to the vehicle, the load carried on the vehicle, the road conditions, the wheel pressures, the purity of the fuel, the maintenance of the vehicle, the driving habits of the rider i.e. some riders have habit of increasing the acceleration every now and then without any requirement for it, some have the habit of keeping the leg on the brake and some have the habit of holding on to the clutch while driving etc. these do make lot of difference to the achieving of ideal fuel average. In fact the same vehicle might give different average to different people under different riding condition and circumstances. Therefore only because the complainant is saying he is not getting an ideal average cannot be concluded that the vehicle is capable of achieving ideal average.  
5. Further fuel average of any vehicle is generally based on the standard test condition which is a externally controlled laboratory condition, in which the vehicle is tested with various parameter and one of the parameter is constant spped at 30 kmpl or 40 kmpl etc and in all these range this vehicle did achieve by the testing authority that is the Automobile Research Association of India, which is a recognized institute under the consumer protection act.1986 as an appropriate laboratory which tests these automobile vehicles and it is also certifying to that effect and based on that certification these figures are generally quoted by all automobile manufactures so that the buyers can make their purchase decision based on that it is not for deceiving or doing of any unfair trade practice as alleged. In fact the opponents are reputed manufacturer and its dealer respectively for the last more than 4 decades.   
6. Further even assuming without admitting for a moment that the allegation of the complainant is right still the advertised figure of mileage only indicates the capacity of the engine to give that much mileage provided the vehicle is properly driven and maintained and the opponent have never guaranteed & or said that any person who drives the vehicle in any manner will get 101 kmpl. Such claims have been never made. In fact the vehicle has many features and fuel average indicated is one of the features. Hence that cannot even form a cause of action for filing this complaint. Therefore complainant drawing his own inference and filing this false case on mileage is not only incorrect but is an abuse of the process of this forum.     
7. Hon’ble M.R.T.P Commission had occasion to decide such an issue in M/s Kinetic Engineering Company case in which the Hon’ble Commission observed that giving of standard test figure in the advertisement is not unusual and also it has taken the view of petroleum conservation association which has stated that is going to be 30% variation in mileage than the standard test figure due to different road conditions etc.
8. There is no Expert Report or Opinion submitted by this complainant, as required under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 specially when a product like CT100 Motorcycle is concerned which is basically an assembly of hundreds of complex mechanical, engineering and electrical components/parts, and in which each part or components are easily replaceable without in any manner affecting the performance of the vehicle. For that matter, even the main part like engine or chassis is also replaceable, without in any manner affecting the performance of the vehicle. Therefore the relief claimed by the complainant is not only improper and incorrect but also speculative nature.
9. Even assuming without admitting there still exist some problem in the vehicle the same is rectifiable by simple replacement of that part or component only. Therefore there is no need for ordering any relief required now, more so when the complainant is continuously using the vehicle. Any relief if granted it will not only prejudice the interest of the opponents but will set a wrong precedent for other vehicle users who for any small reason rush to the forum and file a frivolous complaint.
10. Further there is well laid down precedents of Hon’ble National Commission in Voluntary Organization case and in E.I.D Parry case, wherein it was categorically held that whenever any person alleges any manufacturing defect and compensation, the same has to be proved with an expert report or opinion. It is pertinent to mention here that except the allegations of the complainant regarding the defects in the vehicle there is no other cogent or convincing evidence nor the complainant has submitted any such expert report or opinion.
11. The Opponents are reputed manufacturer and dealers respectively and their endeavor always, is to see a satisfied customer with the vehicle, which he/she has purchased, vis-à-vis the services provided to it from time to time. Therefore opponents not only render services during the full warranty period of two years, but also always try to help the customers if they really have any after sale operation problems. These services are rendered as a gesture of good will and to maintain good customer relationship.     

2. The complainant in his rejoinder has submitted the following facts:-

1. It is stated that Opposite Parties has filed their show cause which is a lame duck in the eye of law in absence of any affidavit, and hence any of its averments cannot stand on sound footings.
2. Despite above, from perusal of the said show case followed by said petition dated 13.11.07 of the Opposite parties, it is clear that they have misconceived the case and tried to mislead the court converting the allegation from “Unfair Trade Practice” to “Defective Goods”.
3. The Connoted defects of the goods are derived from their own service job reports, through which the Opposite parties have themselves admitted it’s so called defects.
4. The complainant through the instant case has raised his grievance as against the Unfair Trade Practice of the Opposite parties, whereby through their advertisement the purchased goods (Vehicle) was represented for its mileage to the tune of 101 Kmpl of consumption of fuel. Whereas, admittedly, the same never exceeded the miles coverage more than 40 km per liter.

Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.

We have narrated the brief facts asserted by the parties in the above Paras.

The complainant has asserted that Opposite Parties have given misleading advertisement that the Motorcycle in question will ply 10 K.M. in one liter of petrol but the vehicle hardly plys 30 – 40 K.M. in one liter. The next grievance of the complainant is that there are several defects in engine and acceleration of the Motorcycle.

Admittedly the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 03.12.2004 ( vide annexure – 3 ) and this complaint has been filed on 02.11.2006 i.e about 2 months before expiry of warranty period. The fact that during warranty period Opposite Parties have given free service according to condition of warranty has not been controverted by the complainant.

The complainant has relied on Job cards which have been annexed with the complaint petition as annexure B series ( from page 9 to 14 ). The year of Job card no. 681 is not worth readable but from perusal of this Job Card it appear at the time of submitting the motorcycle had run of 669 K.M. The other Job card disclosed more run of motorcycle at the time of submitting for repair with Opposite Parties. Thus it crystal clear that after plying the motorcycle 669 K.M. the complainant had approached the service centre first time. He had approached service centre after plying 100 K.M. or 150 K.M. the matter would have been different. This fact goes against complainant.

It is true that in the Job cards several defect has been mentioned but there are no material to show that the defects mentioned in the Job cards are due to manufacturing defects.

It is surprising that vide order dated 12.08.2009, the complainant was directed to get the engine of the vehicle examined by Ashoka Agency but despite agrecing for this, the complainant has not complied the aforesaid direction of this forum and this case was allowed to be dragged for years lastly it was heard by this forum. It is needless to say that without examination by an expert how it can be presumed that there was manufacturing defects. It is needless to say that fuel average of any vehicle is generally based on the standard test conditions in externally controlled labour condition. The fuel consumption is also affected by rough driving against the owner manual which is given to every buyer at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Hence in absence of cogent material we are unable to record finding that there was manufacturing defect in the engine and Opposite Parties has published misleading advertisement. So far the recording of defects in the Job cards are concerned it is on the statement of the person who comes to the service centre for repair. These defects can also occur due to rough driving.

The Opposite Parties have asserted that Automobile Research Association of India is recognized institute under Consumer Protection Act 1986 which issue certificate after testing the motorcycle. There is no cogent material to prove the aforesaid assertion untrue.

For the discussion made above we find no merit in this complaint petition and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.

                  Member                                                              President