KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.508/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 24.5.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1. L.M.L.Ltd., : APPELLANTS C-3, Panki Industrial Estates, Kanpoor, Uttar Pradesh. 2. The Proprietor, Rahsu, South Bazar, kannur-2. (By Adv.P.Anil, counsel for 2nd appellant) Vs. K.Mohammed Rafi, : RESPONDENT Kaneelagathu, CP Ward, Kannur-3. (BY Adv.S.Reghukumar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /the manufacturer and dealer respectively in OP.No.189/98 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to rectify the defect of the scooter so as to get a mlileage of 57 to 63 Kms per litre or else to supply a new scooter and also to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.750/- towards cost. It is submitted by the counsel for the 2nd appellant/dealer that the 1st appellant manufacturing company has been closed down and the 1st appellant has abandoned the appeal and that the appeal was dismissed for non representation and that subsequently the 2nd opposite party/dealer filed a restoration petition arraying the 1st appellant as one of the respondents. It is his case that being a dealer should not have been foisted with joint and several liability as he will have to bear the entire burden. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the particular LML Supreme scooter worth Rs.35,092/-on 22.11.96 exchanging his wespa scooter for sum of Rs.22000/-. According to him the opposite parties had assured the mileage of 63 kms after the completion of 2000 kms. The complainant has plied the vehicle for more than 10000 kms but the vehicle has given only 40km per litre of petrol. Hence he has sought for a direction to rectify the defects and also to pay sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation. 3. In the version filed by the 1st opposite party/Manufacturer it is noted that after service the complainant was convinced that the vehicle will give a mileage of 58 kms. When came for subsequent service no complaint in this regard was made. Even on 24.10.97 when the vehicle was produced for the 6th service there was no complaint. 4. The 2nd opposite party has also supported the version of 1st opposite party. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.P1,P1(a) and P1(b), Ext.C1. 6. We find that Commissioner has been examined as PW1. In Ext.C1 commission report it is mentioned that when he plied the scooter with a pillion rider at a speed there was a mileage of 56KM. The Commissioner examined the vehicle on 3.6.99 ie. after about 2 ½ years of purchase. As per xt.P1(a) Users Manual the mileage offered is 60km plus or minus 3kms. Admittedly the complainant has used the vehicle for morethan 10000 kms. Even as per Ext.P1(a) the mileage offered is upto 3 kms minus of 60kms. Hence it can be 57kms. The difference is only of 1 km as in Ext.C1 report of the commissioner coulld obtain 56kms per litre with a pillion rider. Hence we find that the complainant could not establish notable deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Office is directed to forward the LCR urgently to the Forum. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
