IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C.No.11/2014 (Filed on 17.01.2014)
Between:
Lovely Thomas,
W/o. Thomas Mathew,
Kannankara Puthenpurayil House,
Nellickamon, Angadi Village,
Ranny Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) ….. Complainant
And:
1. M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,
Chandrapura Industrial Estate,
Halol, Panchamahals Dist,
Gujarat – 389 351.
(By Adv. Joseph. K)
2. Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Kumbazhethu Buildings,
Churulicode, Kozhencherry Road,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Ajith. S. Nair) …. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows:- Complainant purchased a Chevrolet Beat Car manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 04.04.2012 by paying Rs.4,94,977/- from the 2nd opposite party, the authorized dealer and the service centre of the 1st opposite party. Complainant had promptly done the periodical services through the 2nd opposite party as per the owner’s manual. At the time of purchase of the said car, opposite parties offered a mileage of 24 km/litre of diesel. Initially the complainant got a mileage of 22 km/litre. But after the 2nd service, the mileage is decreased to 12 km./litre The matter was conveyed to the 2nd opposite party. But they have not done anything for increasing the mileage for one or other reasons and persuaded the complainant for 3rd service in the month of March 2013. But after the 3rd service, the complainant got only 16.17 km./lr. So the complainant again informed the complaint of low mileage to the opposite party on 27.09.2013. But they have not done anything to increase the mileage of the complainant’s vehicle. According to the complainant, the complaint of low mileage is due to the inherent manufacturing defect of the car. The above said act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to depute an expert mechanic to check the vehicle and rectify the complaints of the said car in respect of the complaints of low mileage free of cost along with Rs. 35,000/- as compensation with 12% interest from the date of filing of this complaint, complainant also prays for allowing the cost.
3. In this case, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate versions.
4. The main contentions of the 1st opposite party is as follows: They admitted the sale of the car but they denied the allegations of manufacturing defect and low mileage. According to the 1st opposite party, based on the complaint of the complainant regarding the low mileage a joint test drive was conducted by the 2nd opposite party on 12.02.2013 in the presence of the complainant and during which the vehicle achieved a mileage of 23 km./litre. The mileage of the vehicle depends upon various factors. The mileage offered is based on the test drive under standard conditions as prescribed under Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. Since from the purchase the complainant had been plying the vehicle without any complaint including mileage and she never raised any complaint of manufacturing defect to the 2nd opposite party. The car purchased by the complainant is having no manufacturing defect and hence the complainant has to prove the same. Thus there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from their part. So this complaint is misconceived, frivolous and vexatious and is not allowable. With the above contentions, 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
5. The main contentions in the version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:- They also admitted the sale of the car to the complainant. All the vehicles manufactured by the 1st opposite party will be subjected for proper testing under Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1986. The authorities will conduct all sorts of tests including fuel efficiency test. Based on the test results and the certificate issued, advertisements about the specifications of the vehicle will be published. Chevrolet Beat Car fuel efficiency under standard test conditions is 24 km./lr and advertisement to that effect has been published in the medias. There is no misrepresentation in the said publications. Fuel efficiency depends on various factors. The 2nd opposite party has not offered any mileage to the complainant’s vehicle. 24 km/lr is offered on the basis of the certificate issued by Siam, a Govt. approved agency. The allegation that the vehicle is getting only a mileage of 12 km. is not correct. 2nd opposite party admitted the intimation of complainant regarding low mileage. But they have not noticed any specific defect or the complainant has not raised any specific defect to the 2nd opposite party. There is no manufacturing defect to the car and there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the 2nd opposite party. With the above contentions, 2nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Ext.A1 to A4 and B1 to B4. After closure of evidence, 1st opposite party filed written argument note and the parties were heard.
8. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that the car purchased from the opposite parties is getting only low mileage than the mileage offered by the opposite parties. The said complaint of low mileage is due to the manufacturing defect of the car. The complainant’s demand for rectifying the complaint of low mileage or for the replacement with a brand new car is not honoring by the opposite parties. The said act of the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. So the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant’s husband being the authorized representative of the complainant, filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Another document also marked for the complainant as Ext.A5 through DW2. Ext.A1 is the authorization in favour of PW1 executed by the complainant. Ext.A2 is the brochure issued by the opposite parties in respect of the complainant’s car. Ext.A2(a) is that particular portion in Ext.A2 showing fuel efficiency of the car as 25.44 km./lr. diesel. Ext.A3 and A3(a) are the letters issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party on 05.06.2013 and 27.09.2013 respectively in respect of his compliant of low mileage. Ext.A3(b) is the postal receipt in respect of Ext.A3(a) letter. Ext.A4 is the joint report of mileage test conducted on the vehicle of the complainant on 30.05.2014. Ext.A5 is an advertisement of the opposite parties in Malayala Manorama daily dated 13th June, 2014 showing the fuel efficiency of the car as 25.44 km./lr.
10. On the other hand, the contentions of the opposite parties is that there is no manufacturing defect to the complainant’s car as alleged by the complainant. The mileage of 25.44 km./lr offered by the opposite parties is based on the certificate issued by the competent authorities by testing the mileage in standard conditions. The said mileage cannot be expected in the mileage test under normal conditions as fuel efficiency is depended on various matters such as the quality of fuel, road conditions, driving habits, load in the vehicle, proper servicing and maintenance of the vehicle etc. Further, the complainant had no complaints of low mileage for more than one year from its purchase and it is evident even from joint mileage test report that the mileage was increased after services. So the allegation of manufacturing defect is baseless and hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from their part. Therefore, they argued for dismissing the complaint.
11. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate proof affidavits through their authorized officers along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the authorized officer of the 2nd opposite party is examined as DW1 and the documents produced by him has been marked as Ext.B2 and the authorized officer of the 1st opposite party was examined as DW2 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.B3 and B4. Apart from the above exhibits, a particular portion in Ext.A2 is marked as Ext.B1 through PW1. Thus Exts.B1 to B4 were marked in favour of the opposite parties. Ext.B1 is that particular portion of Ext.A1 showing that the fuel efficiency of 25.44 km./lr is based on the certificate of the competent authority. Ext.B2 is Siam Fuel Economy Consumer Information (Test results of Rule 115 of CMVR) issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.B3 is the authorization in favour of DW2 executed by the 1st opposite party. Ext.B4 is the copy of a particular page in the owner’s manual showing the suggestions for getting more fuel efficiency.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the only dispute is with regard to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle in question. According to the complainant, his vehicle is getting only low mileage i.e., less than 20 kms. as against 25.44 kms. offered by the opposite parties and the said complaint of low mileage is due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. But according to the opposite parties, the mileage offered is based on the certificate issued by the competent authority after testing the mileage in standard conditions and the mileage depends upon various factors and hence there is least possibility in getting the offered mileage, if the mileage is tested under normal conditions. Moreover, the complainant had no complaints of manufacturing defect or mileage complaints for more than one year. Further, it is evident from the joint mileage test and other documents the mileage was increased after services.
13. In view of the contentions of the parties, it is much pertinent to say that though the complainant alleges manufacturing defect of the vehicle, he has not adduced any evidence for substantiating his allegation of manufacturing defect. It is the duty of the complainant to prove his case. Moreover, the allegation of manufacturing defect after a lapse of about 14 months from the date of purchase will not stand unless there is evidence showing that he had raised such a complaint during the 1st or 2nd free services. So we find that the allegation of manufacturing defect will not sustain on the basis of the available evidence. At the same time, it is seen that the complainant had a grievance of low mileage. But it is found that the mileage was increased up to 20.5 kms. after services done based on the complaints of low mileage, when the vehicle was driven with 4 persons in mixed up traffic with air conditioner in an average speed of 55 km/hour (Ext.A4). It is a fact that the mileage offered by the opposite parties is based on the mileage test conducted by the competent authorities under standard conditions. So nobody can expect the offered mileage in a mileage test conducted in normal conditions. However, the mileage improvement seen after services shows that if services are properly done, there is chance for improving mileage. Therefore, this complaint can be disposed as follows:
In the result, this complaint is disposed with a direction to the 2nd opposite party for doing the next service properly particularly for ensuring high mileage not less than 20.5 km/lr. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of November, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member - I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member - II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Thomas. P. Mathew
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Authorization in favour of PW1 executed by the complainant. A2 : Brochure issued by the opposite parties.
A2(a) : Particular portion in Ext.A2.
A3 & A3(a) : Letters issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite
party on 05.06.2013 and 27.09.2013.
A3(b) : Postal receipt of Ext.A3(a) letter.
A4 : Joint report of mileage test conducted on the vehicle of the
complainant on 30.05.2014.
A5 : Advertisement of the opposite parties in Malayala Manorama
daily dated 13th June, 2014
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : G. Pradeepkumar
DW2 : Mahesh Raveendran
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Particular portion of Ext.A1.
B2 : Siam Fuel Economy Consumer Information (Test result of Rule
115 of CMVR) issued by the 1st opposite party.
B3 : Authorization in favour of DW2 executed by the 1st opposite
party.
B4 : Copy of a particular page in the owner’s manual.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Lovely Thomas, Kannankara Puthenpurayil House,
Nellickamon, Angadi Village, Ranny Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,
Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol,
Panchamahals Dist, Gujarat – 389 351.
(3) Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kumbazhethu Buildings,
Churulicode, Kozhencherry Road,Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
