KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM FIRST APPEAL 427/09 JUDGMENT DATED:25.3.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER G.Sasidharan, : APPELLANT Mekke vilakath veedu, TC 48/130. Ambalathara, Poonthura.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. Vs. 1. Proprietor/Partner : RESPONDENTS Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam Junction Trivandrum. 2. C.M.Mathew, Area Service Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Krishna Kripa, 39/3584, KSN Menon Road, Kochi-16. 3. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune 411038, Rep. by its Managing Director. (By Adv.S.Ajith) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.27/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.. The complaint was filed seeking replacement of the Bajaj RE-4 Stroke Autorikshaw which stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the above vehicle on 20.4.01 for a sum of Rs.74,640.20/- for availing loan of Rs.73,500/- from the Kerala State Physically Handicapped Person’s Welfare Corporation. It is his contention that the 1st opposite party/dealer instigated him to purchase the autorikshaw misrepresenting that the production of two stroke engine has been stopped and assuring him of 2 years guaranty and also telling that the fuel efficiency is 55 KM per liter. According to him the fuel efficiency was found to be as low as 20 KM per liter. It is also alleged that the above autorikshaw has been manufactured using the engine of a four stroke two wheeler integrating into the body of two stroke three wheeler without necessary studies and modifications that has resulted in fast wear and tear of the engine parts. He had complained before the District Collector and the complaint was forwarded to the police station. Therein the opposite parties assured to provide a two stroke engine . According to him the vehicle was handed over to the 1st opposite party following a letter received from the 3rd opposite party. He was subsequently informed that the vehicle is ready after repairing. The manufacturing defects can not be repaired. He has sought for suitable replacement of the engine. 3. The 1st opposite party on behalf of the manufacturers also has filed version totally denying all the allegations including the one with respect to the alleged assurance of 55 KMs of fuel efficiency. It is pointed out that warranty given is only for 6 months or for 5000 KMs whichever is earlier. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.P1 to P11 and C1. 5.The Forum has relied on the report of the expert commissioner who has to examined the vehicle as reported that there is no manufacturing defects and that the average fuel efficiency of four stroke autorikshaw is 25 KMs per liter. 6. We find that the Commissioner has inspected the vehicle on 13.7.04. The date of purchase is 20.24.01. the case was filed on 18.1.03 ie., about 2 years after purchase. The speedo meter reading when the commissioner inspected is 40746.5KM. The Forum has noted that the complainant has used the vehicle to the maximum and then filed the complaint. Further we find that the complainant has not produced any records to show that the vehicle had given rise to mechanical defects etc. In fact he has no such case also. His grievance is with respect to the less fuel efficiency and high cost of spares. He has not produced any bills for the purchase of spares also. 7. The counsel for the appellant has laid stressed on the fact that Ext.P11 report of the RTO mentions that from 2000 onwards to 2006 there was no registration of four stroke Bajaj RE Autoriksaws. The above alone is not a ground to presume that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. Appeal is dismissed. Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
