F.A.No.1712/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.946/2005, DISTRICT FORUM-1,Hyderabad.   

Between:

Honda  Siel Cars India Limited,

Rep. by the Managing Director,

Plot No.A-1, Sector  40/41, Surajpur Kanna Road,

Greater Nodia  I.D.A. ,

 District  Goutham  Budh Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh -201 306.                                       … Appellant/

                                                                                    Opp.party no.2

         And

1.N.Purushotham Reddy,

   S/o.late  Raghava Reddy

   Aged about 70 years,

   R/o.775-D, Road No.45,

   Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.                                   …Respondent/

                                                                                    Complainant

2.The Proprietor,

   Sundaram Honda,

   67, M.G.Road, Raniganj,

   Secunderabad – 500 003.                                   …Respondent/

                                                                                     Opp.party no.1 

Counsel for the Appellant     :      Mr.T.Surya Satish

Counsel for the Respondents:       M/s. G.Sudha –R2

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

                                                  AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE   MEMBER

         MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,         

               TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per   Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                *****

Aggrieved by the order in  CC.No.946/05 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad,  opposite party no.2 preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint  are    that the complainant purchased  Honda  City Car vide invoice no.511 dt. 10.4.2005  from opp.party no.1   who is the  dealer and  opp.party no.2 who is the  manufacturer   assured  that the fuel efficiency would be at 27 kmpl.  After using the  said car   the complainant  found that the car  has no fuel efficiency of more than 12 kmpl.  despite  the opp.parties ‘s  claim  of 14.5 kmpl in worst conditions.   On highways the car should give  fuel efficiency of  27 kmpl  but the  said car never gave  fuel efficiency of  more  than 12 kmpl.    The complainant spent huge amounts of money on fuel   and he has used the car for 11,250 kms which has put a burden on him of Rs.15,000/- extra on the fuel.  The opposite parties have neither refunded the complainant’s money nor replaced the car.  Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties   to refund Rs.8,05,593/-,  to refund   excess amount  spent on petrol Rs.15,000/-,  to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-,  to pay costs  of Rs.5000/-    totaling to Rs.8,75,593/- along with interest @ 18% till the date of settlement + excess amount  spent on the fuel  till date of  settlement.

Opp.party no.1 filed counter  admitting the purchase of Honda City Car by the complainant   from them  and  denied the allegations  with regard to false advertisement was  made as to the fuel efficiency.  The opp.party  submits that the fuel efficiency depends upon several parameters i.e. road condition, traffic, driving condition, frequent change of gears etc.   Since there is a pedantic clutch and  if half clutch is operated it decreases fuel efficiency  and consumes more petrol  which was explained  to the complainant  and there is no manufacturing defect in the car to warrant replacement  or refund of its cost.   The opp.party submits  that the car was purchased in the company’s name and it was used for commercial purpose  and the complainant came with the allegations with an oblique motive that   the opp.party to save their reputation will concede to his demand. The opp.party states that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 Opposite party filed counter contending that the  car was purchased  by the Limited Company  for  commercial purpose  and hence the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainant has not given the details  on what basis it is  found that fuel efficiency  was never more   than 12 kmpl  As per the job cards shown by  opp.party no.1 the car had shown   good mileage.   There will not be  any warranty for the  mileage much less it was assured for it.  The opp.party  states that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf  and prayed  for dismissal of the complaint .

The District  Forum based on the  evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and B1 & B2  allowed the complaint in part directing the opp.parties 1 & 2  to pay compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-  to the complainant   together with interest @ 9% p.a.  besides legal expenses of Rs.2000/- within 30 days of receipt of the order.

Aggrieved by the said order , opp.party no.2 preferred this appeal.  

         The appellant and   respondent no.1/complainant  filed  written argument

It is a case of the complainant  that he bought a new Honda City 1.5 G X L model  car  and purchased it for personal use  based on the advertisement of the opp.party as evidenced under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 which shows that fuel efficiency would be  as follows:

        Best      :27.0 kmpl

        Worst    :14.5 kmpl

        Overall  :19.3 kmpl

The complainant submits that his car is giving fuel efficiency of only 12 kmpl.   He also sought for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner before the District Forum  and RTA  was appointed as Commissioner to submit his report.  It is the case of the appellant/opp.party no.2 who also filed his written arguments  that  the Motor Vehicle Inspector, RTA who is appointed as Commissioner  conducted mileage test on 30.8.06 and filed a report stating that when he conducted a test he got a mileage of 20 kmpl. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the  car was purchased by   a company  M/s. Photon Energy Systems  Ltd.  whereas the complaint is filed by the complainant in his personal capacity.  The opposite party also  did not file  any evidence to support this contention that the complainant is using the vehicle for  commercial purpose.  The opp.party further submits that the Forum had relied upon the evidence of PW.2 who reported that the car is not giving proper mileage. The mileage depends upon speed condition, road condition, gearshifts etc. PW.2 is an Electronics Engineer and not a Mechanical Engineer and moreover the declaration in the advertisement was given based on the findings of Overdrive magazine  which conducted a survey.   He contended that there was no manufacturing defect and that even if a wrong advertisement is made it does not fall within the purview of Consumer Fora. We observe from Ex.C1 that the motor vehicles inspector K.Madhusudan Reddy has observed as follows:

 “I have taken the vehicle bearing registration no. AP 9 AW  775 Honda City to the M/s.Sundaram Honda, Sec’bad for conducting the mileage test on 30.8.2006. The mileage test for said vehicle was conducted vide cash bill no.1411 dt.30.8.2006 of M/s.Sundaram Honda  and it was found that the vehicle is giving a mileage of 20 kms per one litre of petrol.”

The complainant filed his objections to this report stating that the Commissioner did not state as to what yardstick he used  to state that the mileage is 20 kms per  ltr. of petrol. The District Forum observed that  in his cross examination the Motor Vehicles Inspector clearly  admitted that he used and fixed the consumption meter supplied by opp.party no.1 and he did not confirm whether it is defect free or not. He also did not obtain the signature of the driver and on the other hand he obtained the signature of  opp.party no.1 mechanic. As per the  evidence of CW.1 i.e. Motor Vehicles Inspector  he travelled in the car covering only 20 kms. by maintaining a speed of 30 to 40 kms. and  this distance is covered in one liter  of petrol   whereas PW.2 covered distance of 183 kms. and for covering this distance    15.4 Liters  of petrol was consumed and the mileage is   11.88 kms. per liter.  We are of the considered view that  to expect an assured mileage within a distance of 20 kl.mts. by maintaining a speed of 30 to 40 klmts. and using only one ltr. petrol would not give a correct picture when compared to PW2’s report of 183 klmts. distance,  using 15.4 lts. of petrol.  This report showed the mileage of 11.88 kl.mts. per ltr. Moreover CW.1 in his deposition admitted that the consumption meter   that was fixed by him belonged to opp.parties and he did not test it prior to fixing it. The complainant on the other hand continuously corresponded with the opp.parties as seen from Exhibits (Ex.A3) but received no response.     The Customer Care Department in their letter dt.17.2.05 stated that the test drive showed a fuel consumption of 17 kl.mts. per ltr.   When their own Service Engineer has found mileage to be 12 kms. per ltr. stating that they received the vehicle on 17.2.05 and took the vehicle for a test drive  and Ex.A3 shows the continuous E mail messages and reply got by the complainant, the District Forum after taking into consideration the depreciation awarded a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- which we are of the considered view is on the higher side  and we are of the considered view that the same can be reduced  to Rs.1 lakh.  This compensation is being awarded   in the absence of any documentary evidence on record that the fuel mileage  promised by the opp.parties in Ex.A1 advertisement  even in the worst condition was not fulfilled inspite of several complaints and test drives undertaken by opp.parties’ own personnel  as evidenced under Ex.A3 E mails and their subsequent replies.    However we find that the compensation  awarded by the District forum is excessive as the vehicle is still  being  used by the complainant  and therefore we  feel it just  to reduce this amount to Rs.1 lakh.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified reducing compensation awarded by the District Forum  from Rs.1,60,000/- to  Rs. 1 lakh while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                                        Dt. 20.12.2010