DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  20^th   day of October 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                 Date of filing:  24/11/2016

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

   (C.C.No.184/2016)

Sreenivasan,
S/o Raman Nair,
Amrithakripa, Palappuram ,

Ottappalam (Po).                               

Palakkad                                                                -        Complainant

(Adv.M.P.Ravi)

 V/s

1.  The Managing Director,

     M/s Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd,                                                          

    Regional Office, Cohin,

   (Advs.K.Siyavudheen & Anto Thomas                             -        Opposite parties

2.  The Manager,

      M/s Indus Motors,

      Main Road, Ottappalam.

O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member,

          The case of the complainant is that being attracted by the various advertisements given by the 1^st opposite party company, the complainant purchased a new Maruti Cias ZDI car from the 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer.  The complainant purchased the vehicle on 14.08.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.9,73,630/- (Rupees nine lakhs seventy three thousand six hundred and thirty only) towards the price and tax.  After purchasing the vehicle the complainant used the same, but he was disappointed with performance of the vehicle with respect to mileage.  So he approached the 2^nd opposite party and they directed that it will be cured after services.  But after the service also the mileage of the vehicle did not improved and the complainant preferred a complaint with the opposite parties.  Accordingly the opposite parties arranged a mileage test and during the test the vehicle gave an average mileage of 17 km/liter which was much less than the promised mileage.  The opposite parties have promised a mileage of 27.5 km/liter of diesel for the said vehicle at the time of purchase and as well as through advertisements.  The complainant had approached the opposite party more than ten time to rectify the deficiency in the mileage, but so far the opposite parties could not do anything effectively to get the promised mileage.  In fact the complainant was fed up with the performance of the vehicle which resulted in great mental strain and agony apart from the huge financial loss.  The complainant alleges that he has incurred a loss of Rs.25,000/- due to the shortage of mileage.  Complainant is no longer intending to continue the use of the vehicle with less mileage as it is uneconomical.  More over the value of the vehicle is reduced considerably.  He further submits that the act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service.  He further alleges that the opposite party should have provided actual mileage of the vehicle as advertised.  Canvassing with wrong advertisement is unfair trade practice.  Providing inferior quality products to the customers amounts to cheating and leads to deficiency of service.  Hence the complainant submits that he is entitled to get the vehicle rectify free of cost apart from the compensation claimed.  The complainant is estimating a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony along with cost of this proceedings. 

The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance.  Opposite party 1 entered appearance and filed their version.  2^nd opposite party failed to appear before the Forum inspite of accepting the notice.  Hence he was called absent and set ex-parte. 

1^st opposite party contended that the complaint is not a consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.  They further submitted that the mileage of a vehicle is dependent on lot of factors inter alia, driving habits of an individual, driving conditions were the vehicle is being plied, fuel quality etc. Therefore the mileage of a vehicle would tend to differ from person to person.  The complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint without any materials on record.  The vehicle in question is FCOK & PDI certified on the date of sale, which proves its perfect ok condition in all aspects.  The complainant has further conceive the factum of two joint mileage test being conducted on the vehicle.  One test under ideal condition and the other one on normal city road condition with traffic.  The complainant has very conveniently only revealed the test results for the city condition wherein the average achieved was 19 km/liter (the complainant was driving himself) and withheld the information about the mileage of 22.2 km/liter with air condition and a mileage of 27.58 km/liter without air condition in ideal conditions testing wherein the vehicle was driven by the experts of the opposite parties.  The said fact is very much within the knowledge of the complainant as it was communicated to him vide a letter dated.04.06.2016 written by the dealership.  The complainant with ulterior motive has been making demands which are beyond the scope of warranty and taking the shelter of this Forum and trying to put undue pressure on the opposite parties.  It is also submitted that the vehicle in question has undergone all the checks and only then FCOK (Final Check OK) was given by first opposite party before dispatching it to opposite party 2.  It is further pertinent to submit here that opposite party No.2 carry out Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) including Road Test, ensuring perfect ok road worthy condition of vehicle in question at the time or sale leaving no place for defects in vehicle.  The customers at the time of sale acknowledge the same by signing the PDI/warranty registration card at the time of purchasing the vehicle.  The vehicle in question has undergone all the above process and was in perfect ok condition at the time of sale. 

The complainant is not entitled to any relief what so ever and is not entitled to claim and recover anything from the 1^st opposite party.  Complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with cost.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. 

Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Opposite party filed application as IA 181/2017 seeking permission to cross examine the complainant.  Application was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A4 series were marked (Ext.A3 marked subject to proof).  1^st Opposite party also filed affidavit.  Complainant filed application to cross examine 1^st opposite party. Application was allowed and opposite party was cross examined as DW 1.  Exts.B1 to B4 was marked.  Evidence was closed and matter was heard.  

The following issues that arises for consideration are.

1.Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties ?

2.If so what are the relief and cost?

Issues No.1 & 2

We have perused the document and affidavits filed by both parties. 

According to the complainant he was attracted by various advertisements given by the 1^st opposite party who had promised a mileage of 27.5 km/liter of diesel for the said vehicle.  No such advertisements was produced before the Forum by the complainant to prove the same.  Admittedly the opposite party has conducted and has arranged several mileage test as per the complaint of the complainant.  According to the complainant during the test the vehicle gave only an average mileage of 17 km/liter where as the opposite party had stated that the average achieved was 19 km/liter.  The complainant had also admitted during cross examination that the mileage of a vehicle is dependent on lot of factors such as driving habits of an individual, driving condition, fuel quality, road condition etc.  Therefore the mileage of the vehicle would differ from person to person.  The complainant had stated in the complaint that the company has promised about 27.5 km/liter as mileage where as during re- examination he had stated that they offered 26.7 km/liter as mileage.  Hence it can be inferred that the complainant himself has no consistent case regarding the correct mileage offered by the opposite party.  He had also not taken out any steps to get the vehicle examined by an independent expert technician to prove with regard to the mileage of the said vehicle.  From the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant failed to establish the case put forward in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is dismissed without cost. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^rd day of October 2017.

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President 

                          Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                          Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  -  Photo copy of Tax Vehicle Invoice

Ext.A2  – Photo copy of vehicle Botcher

Ext.A3  –  Photo copy of e mail messages sent by the complainant to opposite party  

              (subject to proof)

Ext.A4  series - Photo copy of letter sent by the complainant’s Advocate to opposite

                        Parties

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1 -  Photo copy of Dealership Agreement of the vehicle

Ext.B2 - Photo copy of warranty policy

Ext.B3 - Photo copy of letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant

             dated.04.06.2016

Ext.B4 - Photo copy of 1^st  free inspection coupon

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW 1- Sreenivasan

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW 1 - Govinda Raja.K

Cost   

          Nil