Haryana

StateCommission

A/943/2016

DR.MANPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JOHAN KUMAR

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      943 of 2016

Date of Institution:      07.10.2016

Date of Decision :       19.12.2016

 

Dr. Manpreet Singh Tewatia, Medical Officer, Posted at CHC, Nuh, District Mewat (Nuh), Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Hyundai Motor India Limited through Manager, 2^nd, 5^th, & 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025.

2.      The Manager, Parashar Hyundai, Palwal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Johan Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated August 10^th, 2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2.      Dr. Manpreet Singh Tewatia-complainant/appellant, purchased a car (Hyundai Grand i10) from Parashar Hyundai, Palwal-Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.5,68,863/-, the authorized dealer of Hyundai Motor India Limited -Opposite Party No.1 (manufacturer).

3.      The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party No.2 had assured that the car would give the mileage of 24 Kilometers Per Litre (Kmpl) but it gave the mileage of 16 Kmpl.  He also complained to the opposite party No.1 with regard to one tyre of the car. Thus, the complainant has sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and Rs.11,000/- litigation expenses.

4.      The only contention raised by learned counsel for the complainant is that the car did not give the assured mileage. 

5.      This Commission does not concur with the submission raised by learned counsel for the complainant.  The fuel consumption of vehicle depends upon various factors like driving habits, road condition, adequate maintenance of the vehicle, quality of the fuel, air pressure in the tyres and length of journey etc. Bad driving habits, that is, continuously putting left foot on clutch, not tuning off ignition at red light, sudden acceleration and air conditioner on at time of ignition, may be the reasons of low mileage. Controlled and moderate speed driving helps a fewer brakes which helps in maintaining fuel efficiency. Besides, the recommended service schedule as per the guidelines of manufacturer helps to keep the car in good condition. Periodic servicing including changing of engine oil, oil filter, spark plugs, fuel filter etc help in best mileage of the vehicle.  It is not the case of the complainant that in the above stated standard conditions the car gave low mileage.  So, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect in the car. 

6.      In view of the above, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 19.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK