2.8.08 Smt.K.P.Preethakumari,Member This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.35, 000/- as compensation and cost. The complainant contended that he had purchased an LML Feedom Prime 125 Bike having Engine No.56RM040391 and chassis No. 7BM512911 from the opposite party on 27.4.06. At the time of purchase the opposite party made him believes that the bike is having a mileage of 80 km and he had purchased believing the representation. After one week of purchase, he understood that the bike is having very low mileage than promised and the complainant approached the opposite party. At that time the opposite party assured that the mileage will be increased after the service. The opposite party had serviced the vehicle on 27.5.06, 27.7.06 and 27.9.06. But even after this mileage of the vehicle is below 35 km. Then again he had approached the opposite party and complained about the low mileage. But the opposite party said that he could not do anything as the manufacturing company stopped the production of the bike one year back. So the opposite party had sold a damaged vehicle to the complainant, even after the manufacturer had closed down their business it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So he had issued a lawyer notice, but ultimately it has no use. Further the complainant had spend Rs.35000/- for the bike. Hence this complaint. After receiving the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. But it was returned with an endorsement closed down. Later proper notice was issued by way of substitute service. The opposite party was absent and set exparte. On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Relief and cost? The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5. Issue Nos. 1 &2 The exhibits 1 and 2 shows that the complainant had purchased the LML Bike having Engine No.56RM040391 and chassis No.7BM512911 from the opposite party. Other documents along with oral testimony of the PW1 shows that the vehicle is having a mileage of 35 km. only. Even after the repeated service of the vehicle, the mileage is not increased as promised by the opposite party. So there is some deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Further the opposite party had neither replied the notice nor represented before the Forum. Above all the opposite party had cheated the complainant by giving a damaged vehicle even after the manufacturer had closed down their business. These amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So we are of the opinion that opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant with Rs.15, 000/- as compensation and Rs.250/- as cost of these proceedings. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.15, 000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation and Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. copy of the owners manual warranty card. A2.copy of the RC A3.Copy of the lawyer notice dt.9.3.07 sent to oP A4..Postal receipt A5.Letter from the postal department dt16.5.07. Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Exhibits for the opposite party. Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent
