Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                        The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting  reliefs from the opposite party. 

                        2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant is the owner of a “Chevrolet Sail LS ABS (D Model)” Car bearing Reg.No.KL.31/F-504.  The complainant purchased this vehicle from the 3^rd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the said Model car.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Sales and Work Division of the said car.  As a result of an advertisement published in news papers the complainant purchased the said car.  The advertisement is Chevrolet Sail LS ABS (D) model has 22.1 km/lr. mileage with a warranty period of 3 years.  The manufacturing company has provided three free services to the vehicle in the said scheme and such free services were enlisted in the operators service manual which was provided by the 3^rd opposite party.  It is contended that within a few days of the purchase of the vehicle the new car does not give the assured mileage of 22.1 km/lr. and the complainant got only a mileage less than 14 km./lr.  The complainant reported this matter to the 3^rd opposite party and he conducted a joint mileage test on 14.04.2013 and understood that only 14 km./lr mileage was only getting to the complainant.  It is stated that apart from this complaint the tyre of the said vehicle was also got 90% damages of completion of 20000 kms. in contrary to their claim of 50 kms. life.  He again contended that the model of the vehicle is 2013 and it is learned that the vehicle was actually a 2012 Model.  All these defects are noticed to the opposite parties and the complainant reported these faults to the head office by telephone on 01.08.2013 and 10.01.2015.  Even if these complaints are reported, no action has been taken by the concerned so far.  According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence in order to redress the above complaint, the complainant filed this petition.  The complainant requested for a relief of replacement of the said car and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- etc. from the opposite parties.

                        3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed 2 separate versions. 

                        4. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are as follows:  According to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, this complaint is either maintainable in law or on facts.  The 1^st opposite party stated that they are used to give various mode of advertisement for the sale of the vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party is specifically denied the fact that the vehicle was achieving a mileage of 14 kms. as against 22 kms. assured by the opposite parties.  According to him, the 3^rd opposite party conducted a joint test drive with the complainant for ascertaining the mileage on 16.04.2013 and the vehicle achieved a mileage of 20 kms./lr.  According to the opposite parties 1 and 2, the life time for the tyres are assured by the tyre manufacturers in which this opposite party has no liability at all.  The life time of the tyre is subjected to divergent factors like maintenance of tyre pressure, driving style and road condition.  These contesting opposite parties again contended that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2013 and the Chassis number mentioned in the invoice was also the same.  These opposite parties denied the allegation of complainant with regard to the year of manufacturing of spare parts and the assumption of the year of manufacture on 2012.  According to them, the complainant was unaware of the fact that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties forwarded the trial product (vehicle) to the statutory authority i.e. ICAT and under their supervision the vehicle goes series of rigorous test and only if the test found that the vehicle is road worthy in all respects the said authority permitted to go ahead with manufacturing the same.  According to this contesting opposite parties, they are globally appreciated for not only manufacturing superior vehicle, but also for providing best sales services also.  These opposite parties are even now ready and willing to have a joint test drive with the complainant with regard to the mileage problem.   According to this opposite parties, they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the complainant and the burden of proving the deficiency in service should be cast upon the person who alleges it.  On the basis of this contention, these contesting opposite parties prayed to dismiss this complaint with cost to opposite parties.

                        5. The 3^rd opposite party is also filed their version as follows:  According to him, this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  This opposite party admitted that he is the authorised dealer and service centre of 1^st opposite party.  According to him, under the brand name Chevrolet is of high standard and is having wide market acceptance.  According to him, the motor vehicles manufactured would be provided for testing under Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules apart from fuel efficiency test.  The advertisements are published by the concerned on the basis of the test result and certificate issued by the authorities.  The alleged advertisement published in the news paper with regard to the fuel efficiency, under standard test condition, of 21.1 km./lr is true.  According to him, there is no misrepresentation for the advertisement published in the news papers.  This opposite party again contended that the said model vehicles are providing a fuel economy of 21.1 km/lr.  The fuel efficiency is always based on road condition, traffic, quality of fuel, driving habit, vehicle maintenance etc. etc.  According to him, this opposite party was not given any assurance to the complainant except the warranty condition stipulated in the owner’s manual.  He again contended that if there is any defect or deficiency found in tyres the manufacturer of the tyres are liable or responsible for it.  According to him, this fact is stated in the owner’s manual.  According to this opposite party, the manufacturing date of the car is taken as the date on which the car is made ready for sale and not the year of manufacture of spare parts.  He again contended that there is no manufacturing defect for the said vehicle and there is no need of replacement of the vehicle as demanded by the complainant.  This opposite party categorically stated that there is no unfair trade practice as alleged, no advertisement is given without any basis and as such the advertisement will not among to unfair trade practice and again submitted that there is no defect in the goods sold and there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Hence this opposite party prayed to accept this version and to dismiss the complaint.

                        6. On the basis of the complaint, version and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether this case is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding relief and costs?

            7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 toA9.  PW2 is the expert commissioner in the case who is examined as PW2 and Ext.C1 is marked.  On the other hand, 3^rd opposite party examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B1 and A10.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the delivery statement issued by the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the vehicle record sheet.  Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the news paper advertisement.  Ext.A4 is the Photocopy of the brochure.  Ext.A5 is the Photocopy of the invoice dated 16.04.2013 issued by the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A6 is the photocopy of the R.C. Book.  Ext.A7 is the repair order dated 15.02.2013.  Ext.A8 series are the retail invoice bills (5 in Nos.) issued by 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A9 series are wheel alignment results (4 in Nos.).  On the other hand, Ext.B1 and A10 marked.  Ext.B1 is the test results of Rule 115 of CMVR.  Ext.A10 is the brochure.  When we peruse the proof affidavit filed by PW1 in lieu of his chief examination it is as far as in the tune of his complaint.  In his proof affidavit deposed he deposed that he purchased the vehicle after seeing the advertisement in Malayala Manorama News paper in the month of February, 2013.  He categorically deposed that due to the influence of this advertisement he was happened to purchase the said car from the opposite party.  He was influenced for the mileage of 22.1 km/lr diesel, a life time of 50 k.m. for the tyres and for better services from the opposite parties.  He again deposed that within a short span of time from the date of purchase of the said car he understood that the mileage of the car is so low and a mileage test was conducted with 3^rd opposite party on 16.04.2013 and found that only 11.5 km/lr was the mileage of the car.  He again deposed that the bear and tear of the tyre of the vehicle are so high and this also happened due to the mechanical defect of the wheel alignment of the car.  In order to prove the offer through the paper publication PW1 produced Ext.A3 paper publication before this Forum.  When we peruse the contents of Ext.A3, it reveals that these kinds of car would provide 22.1 km./lr. (diesel) and the price of the vehicle starts from Rs.5.08 lakhs.  PW2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspects the vehicle as the commissioner in this case and filed the report.  According to his report in Page No.2, it is to see that there is only a mileage of 12 km./1lr. is getting for this vehicle.  According to him, due to the defect in the wheel alignment of the vehicle the bear and tear of the tyre was happened.  It is also deposed that most of the spare parts of the vehicle was made in the year 2012.  On the other hand, the Manager of the 3^rd opposite party is examined as DW1 and through him Ext.B1 is marked.  This Ext.B1 is the test result of Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules.  As per Ext.B1, under standard test condition a fuel economy of 22.1km/lr. is available for this kind of diesel engine (car) and it is also written in the last portion of Ext.B1, “this information is issued in public interest by vehicle manufacturer as a member of society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIA)”.  According to the testimony of DW1, the advertisement are issued for public notice about the fuel economy of the vehicle and it is also based on Ext.B1 certificate.  As per his testimony, the complainant is protected by warranty from the manufacturer and he is not responsible for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  He further deposed that even the C1 commission report is also silent with respect to any manufacturing defect.  According to DW1, the test conducted by PW2, the commissioner in this case is not the test as provided in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules.  After closing of evidence from both sides, we heard both parties in this case.  The complainant, opposite parties 1, 2 and opposite party 3 filed separate hearing notes in this case.

            8. Point No.1:-  In this case, opposite parties 1 to 3 has a definite case to the effect that this case is not maintainable before this Forum.  According to them, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and the allegation put forward by the complainant is false and untenable.  Regarding the maintainability, it is clear that the complainant in this case is a consumer of the opposite parties he totally paid the consideration of the vehicle to the opposite parties and purchased the said car from 3^rd opposite party and the car was manufactured by 1^st opposite party in this case.  Hence it is found that the case is maintainable before this Forum and the point found in favour of the complainant.

            9. Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience we are considering Point No.2 and 3 together.  The next question to be considered is whether the opposite parties committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service against the complainant.  In order to find this issue we have to look into the evidence adduced by the complainant and the opposite parties in this case.  It is to see that the complainant was happened to purchase this car on the basis of the advertisement published in the Malayala Manorama Daily in the month February 2013.  It is clear that on a perusal of the advertisement in the Malayala Manorama and Brochure published by 1^st opposite party which is marked as Ext.A3 in this case shows that a diesel mileage of 22.1 km/lr. is available for this type of car.  Regarding the publication of brochure and the genuineness of the brochure or advertisement, the contesting opposite parties have no objection at all.  In the said brochure, it is also stated with alphabetic letters, “PEOPLE LOVE IT.  EXPERTS RECOMMEND IT”.  The main contention of the complaint is that he totally believed in the so called advertisement he purchased this car with a believe that the said car would get a mileage of 22.1km./lr.  It is also brought out in evidence that even within a span of date of purchase he understood that the mileage of the car was so low.  In order to know the correctness of the mileage, the complainant along with 3^rd opposite party conducted a joint mileage test on 16.04.2013 and it is understood that only 11.5 km./lr. mileage was getting to this car.  It is to see that nowhere in the proof affidavit of DW3 he denied this joint mileage test conducted on 16.04.2015.  At the same time, it is to see that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party seriously opposed the contention raised by the complainant in this case with regard to the mileage, bear and tear of the tyre etc. etc.  As we stated earlier, 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has filed a joint version in this case vehemently challenged the contention of the complainant.  Except the said version 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their contention.  We do admit that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party emphasitically contended that they are protected u/s.115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules.  When we peruse Ext.B1, it can be seen that this Ext.B1 is issued by SIAM (Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers) and it also claims the result is as a test result of Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules.  In Ext.B1, the Chevrolet Sail TCDi vehicle is having a diesel fuel economy of 22.1 km./lr.  It is also clear that the mileage of the vehicle can be changed due to infinite variables such as driving habits, road traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance practices, loading pattern, ambient conditions and usual engineering tolerances and components and so on.  The said reasons are no doubt related to a fuel efficiency of the vehicle.  As far as this case is concerned an expert commissioner is ascertained the fact in issue and he filed a report as Ext.C1 in this case.  The said report is prepared in the presence of the complainant and all opposite parties.  It is to see that the opposite parties have no serious objection with regard to the pattern of mileage test.  If the opposite parties have any objection with regard to the said road test, what prevented them to point out this issues before the Forum.  On the basis of this finding, we would like to give due importance to Ext.C1 report in this case for considering the mileage aspect. 

            10. When we peruse the deposition of PW2, the expert commissioner it reveals that even though we used air condition facility in the car a very little change can be happened to the total mileage of the car.  When the PW1 was cross-examined by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party the counsel asked a question to PW1, “ ആ test-ൻറെ report-ൻറെ കോപ്പിയിൽ ഞാൻ sign ചെയ്തു ടി test-ൽ 20 കി മീ. Mileage കിട്ടിയിരുന്നല്ലോ? അല്ല .  11.5 കി മീ. Mileage മാത്രമേ കിട്ടിയിരുന്നുള്ളു”.   As per Ext.A5, a mileage test dated 16.04.2013 was conducted and got a mileage of 20 km./lr. without A.C and a mileage of 11.5 km. with A.C.  In the light of the opinion given by PW2 the expert commissioner, the use of A.C caused a minute difference with regard to mileage.  Anyway, even without an expert opinion we have to arrive a definite opinion to the effect that this much of difference might not happened with regard to the use of A.C in vehicle.  On the basis of this finding, the calculation arrived as per Ext.A5 has no merit at all.

            11.  On the basis of the above discussion and available evidence before us, it is clear that the complainant purchased this car with an assumption of getting a mileage of 22.1km./lr. when using diesel as its fuel.  It is also evident to see that at present the mileage of the car is only 12 km./lr. and found 10 km. difference from the assured mileage.  The difference of 10 km. mileage is a material fact to be considered.  Then the next question to be considered is, who is liable for the low mileage of the car, it is to be noted that the argument note put forward by the learned counsel for 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties argument note shows that, “if the manufacturer of a vehicle claims a particular mileage based upon the result of a test conducted by a 3^rd party such as ARAI, which is a body under the aegis of the Govt. of India, it cannot be said to have published false information or made a false representation with respect to the fuel economy of the vehicle”.  In the light of the above said submission, we have safely arrived to the fact that the mileage noted in the advertisement i.e., Ext.A3 is on the basis of a test conducted by ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India) if it be so the mileage stated in Ext.A3 i.e., 22.1 km./lr. has got some relevance.  The available evidence of this case give a definite case to the effect that the mileage of the said car is so below than the assured mileage of 22.1km./lr.  As we already discussed earlier there is a difference of 10 km. mileage is suffering by the complainant for his car.  We do admit that the learned counsel appearing for 1^st and 2^nd opposite party submitted that mileage is a relative concept and the manufacturer is safely protected u/s.115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules.  As per the provisions of C.P. Act 1986 Sec.2 (r) “unfair trade practice” means a trade practice, which for the purpose of promoting the sale, use of supply of any goods or for the provision of any service adopts any unfair methods or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices namely,

1. The practice of making any statement, whether orally or inviting or by visible representation which,

1. falsely represents that the goods of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade composition, style or model
   1.  

                        12. When we go through the relevant provision of unfair trade practice which is stated above, it is clear that this case is clearly comes under the Provisions of Sec.2 (r) of C.P. Act.  Sec.9 1(i) clearly indicate falsely representing a particular standard of goods, quality, quantity etc.  Here, it is an admitted fact to the effect that as per Ext.A3, 1^st and 2^nd opposite party specifically offered a car for a mileage 22.1 km./lr.  But at the same time, through a joint mileage test conducted by the complainant and the opposite parties the commissioner categorically stated that the said car has got only a mileage of 12 km./lr.  When the opposite parties counsels cross-examined PW2 on length nothing brought out to disbelieve the version given by PW2 with regard to the mileage test and the mileage result etc.  Therefore, we would like to rely the Ext.C1 report as stated earlier.

                        13. The next question to be considered is whether the bear and tear of the tyre which was alleged by the complainant is proved or not.  According to the commission report it is clearly stated that if the wheel alignment of the vehicle is not properly tested or maintained, it will affect the life of the tyres.  As per Ext.A9 series, it is proved that the complainant tested his vehicle on 18.10.2013, 17.07.2014 and 22.07.2015 for wheel alignment purpose.  In the light of this document we are not in a position to blame the complainant for none test of wheel alignment as alleged by opposite parties.  At the same time, the complainant has not adduced any substantial evidence to show that how far the tyres suffered bear and tear and the quantity of damage sustained from it.  Then the remaining question to be considered is, whether the spare parts of 2012 are used for this 2013 model vehicle.  It is come out in evidence that some of the spare parts are made in the year 2012 and it is also proved that the vehicle is 2013 model.  Anyway, the age of the spare parts difference is only one year and that has not at all considered to be a major defect as far as this case is considered.  The counsel appearing for 1^st and 2^nd opposite party cited a decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in R.P.No.3666-3667, 3925, 3980-3981/2014 which were reported in II (2015) CPJ 32 (NC).  We do admit that as per this decision, the Hon’ble National Commission allowed the contention of the manufacturer and dismiss the complaint.  The main dictum of the decision is, “For the reasons stated hereinabove we are of the considered view that the District Forum and the State Commission were not justified in holding the manufacturer guilty of using unfair trade practice on the basis of the report of PEC, Chandigarh.  Also, in our opinion, considering that the representation made by the manufacturer of the vehicle was based upon the result of the test conducted by ARAI, the opposite parties cannot be said to have used unfair trade practices for selling the vehicle.  Consequently, the revision petition Nos.3666/14 filed by Em Pee Motors Ltd. And revision petition No.3925/14 filed by Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Are allowed and the revision petition Nos.3980-3981/14 filed by the complainant is dismissed.  The complaint consequently stands dismissed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs”.  When a clear reading of this decision, it can be understood that the test conducted by the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh was not in proper and as a result, the National Commission discard the report and accepted the test conducted by ARAI.  But at the same time, the counsel appearing before the complainant argued that Sec.115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules deals with emission of smoke, vapour etc. from motor vehicle.  According to him, Sec.115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules has not given any protection to manufacturers as argued by the opposite parties.  In the light of decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the above case we are not giving any importance for that submission.  At the same time, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted another decision pronounced on 18th February, 2014 in R.P.No.2201/2012 by Hon’ble Justice. J.M. Malik.  We would like to quote the relevant portion of the decisiion, “The District Forum in its order, dated 02.03.2010, ordered that Tata Motors, OP2, would replace the car of the complainant with a new one, within a period of 45 days of receipt of the said order.  PW2 was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-.  Aggrieved by that order, Tata Motors Ltd., filed two separate appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission, vide its order dated 28.02.2012, partly allowed the appeals.  It modified the order of the District Forum that, in place of replacement of the vehicle with a new one, OP1 & 2 shall pay Rs.3,00,000/- jointly and severally, to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- each, to the complainant.  OP2 was further directed to handover the bill for repairs and other necessary bills to the Appellant, Tata Motors Ltd., and insurance company/OP4, would accordingly disburse the amount of insurance, directly to the respondent No.2, and in turn, the respondent No.2, shall hand over the vehicle in question to the appellant, immediately, on receipt of payment from insurance company, respondent No.4.  The balance, if any, shall be paid by the complainant to respondent No.2.  The litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- were enhanced to Rs.10,000/- which were to be paid by the respondent No.1 and 2, jointly and severally.  In view of these circumstances, we find no flaw with the order passed by the State Commission.  It be complied with, within 90 days, from the date of receipt of this order.  Otherwise, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till its finalo realization.  It was also made clear by the order passed by this Commission, on 28.01.2014, which is already quoted above”.     

                        14. Considering the nature of this case, we don’t think that this decision is an apt decision to follow the issue in question with regard to mileage etc.  This decision clearly mentioned replacement of a vehicle by an accident and it reimbursement by the insurance companies.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant cited another decision reported in Civil Appeal Nos.8072-8073/09 of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat and another.  In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court find that, “we are thus, of the view that to this extent the order of the National Commission cannot be sustained.  We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the direction but the aspect that in absence of such a claim being before the National Commission and the appellant having no notice of such a claim, the said order is contrary to principles of fair procedure and natural justice.  We also make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of any aggrieved party raising a claim before an appropriate Forum in accordance with law”.  When we peruse this judgment, it is clear that an aggrieved party can approach before an appropriate Forum for redressing their genuine grievances.   In the light of the decision by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition No.2203/12 dated 18.02.2014 pronounced by Hon’ble Justice J.M. Malik, it is clear that a mechanical defect is find on a vehicle it has to be replaced by the concerned or otherwise the aggrieved is eligible for the amount which he paid for that article.  As we discussed earlier, it is clear that the PW1’s car has only giving low mileage than offered by opposite party 1 and 2.  We do admit that the learned counsel appeared for 1^st and 2^nd opposite party vehemently argued that as per the decision reported in II(2015)CPJ 36 (NC) the manufacturer is protected from the low mileage of the vehicle if it is tested by ARAI.  When we peruse evidence before us with regard to this aspect the opposite party has not produced any document to show that the offer of mileage has given to the public by Ext.A3 as a result of ARAI test.  If the opposite party has a definite case with regard to this aspect, what prevented them to adduce convincing evidence to this aspect.  We do admit that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party produced and marked Ext.B1, when we peruse this document it is clear that this document is issued by “SIAM FUEL ECONOMY CONSUMER INFORMATION”.  The model of car is Chevrolet Sail TCDi and the Engine Displacement (cm³) 1248 fuel type diesel, fuel economy 22.1 km./lr.  In the bottom of Ext.B1, it is stated that “the information is issued in public interest by the vehicle manufacturer as a member of Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM)”.  Anywhere in Ext.B1, we cannot see that the test is conducted by ARAI.  Hence we can find that the decision cited by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party (II (2015) CPJ 32 (NC) has not applicable to this case when considering the evidence of this case.

                        15. When we peruse the whole evidence adduced by both parties, it is clear that 3^rd opposite party has not committed any deficiency or unfair trade practice against the complainant.  Hence 3^rd opposite party is exonerated from all charges levelled against him.  As far as the claim of compensation against 1^st and 2^nd opposite party it is clear that every day due to the deficiency in mileage the complainant is suffering a lot apart from mental agony and other losses.  Hence the complainant is eligible for reasonable compensation from 1^st and 2^nd opposite party. As we discussed earlier the complainant is succeeded to prove his case and it is found that the opposite party 1 and 2 have committed unfair trade practice u/s.2(r) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hence the complainant has to be allowed against opposite parties 1 and 2.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly or severally responsible for all the illegal acts.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 found in favour of the complainant. 

                        16. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to replace a new Chevrolet Sail LS ABS (D Model) car to the complainant or to return the price of the car for Rs.7,74,638/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Seventy Four Thousand six hundred and thirty eight only) to the complainant within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order.  If the opposite parties fails to comply this order 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay 10% interest to the complainant for the above said amount from the date of purchase, i.e. 15.02.2013 onwards.

2. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant  with an interest of 10% from the date of receipt of this order onwards.

3.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant with an interest of 10% from the date of receipt of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2016.

                                                                                                      (Sd/-)

                                                                                    P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                                                (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)     :     (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)          :     (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  V. Rajencra Prasad

PW2 :  Anilkumar. G

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Photocopy of the delivery statement issued by the 3^rd opposite party. 

A2 :  Photocopy of the vehicle record sheet. 

A3 :  Photocopy of the news paper advertisement. 

A4 :  Photocopy of the brochure. 

A5 :  Photocopy of the invoice dated 16.04.2013 issued by the 3^rd opposite party. 

A6 :  Photocopy of the R.C. Book. 

A7 :  Repair order dated 15.02.2013. 

A8 series :  Retail invoice bills ( 5 in Nos.) issued by 3^rd opposite party. 

A9 series :  Wheel alignment results (4 in Nos.). 

A10 :  Brochure. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Anish

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Test results of Rule 115 of CMVR.

Court Exhibit:

C1  :  Commission Report

                                                                                                                 (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) V. Rajendra Prasad, Raj Bhavan, Chunakkara North,

                     Chunakkara.P.O., Mavelikkara – 690 534.

               (2) General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, Chandrapura Industrial  

                     Estate, Halol – 38935, Panchamahal District,

          Gujarat State.

                (3) The Manager, Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office & Works  

                      Block “B”, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol – 38935,

                      Panchamahal District, Gujarat State.

                (4) The Manager, Deedi Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Kumbazhathu Building,           

                      Churulikode.P.O., Kozhencherry Road, Pathanamthitta.

                (5) The Stock File.