IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.179/2011 (16.08.2011)
Between:
Cheriyan George,
Kuzhiyamvettathu,
Manjadi P.O.,
Thiruvalla … Complainant.
And:
1. Sales Manager,
Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Mazhuvangadu,
Thiruvalla.
2. Service Manager,
Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Churulikodu,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. S. Ajith)
3. Mr. Mohan Basker,
Customer Assts. Centre,
Gurgaon, Haryana. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. K. Joseph)
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Chevrolet Beat LT car on 07.01.2011 for ` 4,65,367 from the first opposite party. The dealers promised the complainant that the car would give 18.6 Km/Lt. They have also widely published in the print and electronic media that their Beat LT petrol car gives 18.6 Km/Lt. After a month of driving the car, complainant noted the fuel efficiency of the car is only 8 Km/Lt. and he brought it to the notice of the Thiruvalla show room. After much persuasion and follow ups, they have made a check-up and claimed that there was not much of a difference in the mileage per litre.
3. Again complainant made complaint to the Service Manager, Pathanamthitta and they took the vehicle for a test drive on a deserted road and they got 15 Km/Lt. In the circumstances, complainant sought for the relief of a direction to modify his car to satisfy him with the mileage of 18.6 Km/Lt. or refund of the price of the car along with cost and compensation.
4. First opposite party is exparte.
5.Second and third opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions.
6. Second opposite party filed version with the following contentions: Second opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased a Beat LT car from them. But the allegation that the dealer promised 18.6 Km/Lt. is not correct. It was only informed to the complainant that under normal testing condition, the fuel efficiency of the car is 18.6 Km/Lt. The allegation that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is getting only 8 Km/Lt. is not correct.
7. The motor vehicles manufactured will be provided for testing under Rule-115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The authorities will conduct all the sort of tests including fuel efficiency test. The fuel efficiency of the Beat LT car under standard test condition is 18.6 Km/Lt. The advertisement to that effect has been published in the media. There is no misrepresentation in the advertisement. Fuel efficiency will depend on various aspects including road condition, traffic, quality of fuel, driving habits, vehicle maintenance etc. Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought by him. Hence second opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
8. Third opposite party filed version with the following contentions: Third opposite party states that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They sell the vehicle to the dealers on a principal to principal basis. The dealers thereafter sell the vehicles to customers. Third opposite party is not involved in the process whereby the dealer subsequently sells the vehicle to the final consumer. Moreover, fuel consumption in a vehicle depends upon various factors like driving style, load, gears used, fuel quality etc. There isk also no cause of action for the above complaint as against them. Hence third opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
10. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1. DW1 and Exts. A1 and A1(a). After closure of evidence, opposite parties filed their argument note and both sides were heard.
11. The Point: Complainant’s case is that the vehicle purchased by him from the opposite parties did not fetch the promised mileage of 18.6 Km/Lt. He got only 8 Km/Lt. In the circumstances, complainant sought for the relief of a direction to modify his car to satisfy him with the mileage of 18.6 Km/Lt. or refund of the price of the car along with cost and compensation.
12. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 and A1(a). Ext.A1 is the photocopy of an advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily. Ext. A1(a) is the technical specifications of the Beat Petrol Car from website. As per the order in IA-09/2012, an Expert Commissioner was appointed. But he was not examined and the Commission Report is not marked.
13. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the fuel efficiency of Chevrolet Beat car under standard test condition is 18.6 Km/Lt. The advertisement to that effect has been published in the media. Fuel efficiency will depend on various aspects including road condition, traffic, quality of fuel, driving habits etc. There is no mis-representation in the advertisement published regarding fuel efficiency of the Beat LT petrol car.
14. In order to prove the contentions of the second opposite party, General Manager of second opposite party filed proof affidavit and he was examined as DW1.
15. On the side of the third opposite party, there is no oral or documentary evidence.
16. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the sale and purchase of the Chevrolet Beat car. The only dispute is with regard to the mileage/fuel efficiency of the car. The case put forth by the complainant is that the vehicle purchased by him from the opposite parties did not fetch the promised mileage of 18.6 Km/Lt. But the contention raised by the opposite parties is that they never give any assurance regarding mileage. Mileage of a vehicle depends on parameters like driving habits, road condition, fuel quality etc.
17. It is noted that apart from oral testimony of complainant, there is no materials before us to find that the vehicles mileage is only 8 Km/Lt. Even though a Commissioner was appointed, he was not examined before the Forum or his report is not marked. Therefore, that report cannot be accepted in evidence.
18. Second opposite party raised the contention that the mileage depends upon various aspects like road condition, vehicle maintenance, driving methods etc. Moreover, they have not given any assurance regarding mileage. Mileage is certified by M/s. Siam, an authorized govt. agency. It is also clear from the deposition of DW1 that “hml-\¯n-sâ mileage -R-§Ä assure -sN-bvXn-«n-Ã……………18.6 k.m. assure -sN-bvXn-cn-¡p¶-Xv SIAM -F¶ Kh. AwKo-IrX GP³kn-bmWv”.
19. Complainant approached the Forum with the grievance that the vehicle purchased by him did not have the assured mileage of 18.6 Km/Lt. In a case where such a specific allegation is made, it is to be proved by adducing cogent evidence. But apart from oral testimony of the complainant, there is no materials brought before the Forum to prove that the vehicle is getting only 8 Km/Lt. As it is well settled that pleading is not evidence, the complainant has the responsibility and liability to prove the grievance by adducing evidence. But he failed to do so.
20. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. In the circumstances, we find no reason to allow this complaint and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
21. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of
August, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N.Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Cheriyan George.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the advertisement in Malayala Manorama
Daily dated 21.04.2011 highlights the fuel efficiency.
A1(a): Technical specifications of the Beat Petrol Car from
Website.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : G. Pradeepkumar.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to: 1. Cheriyan George, Kuzhiyamvettathu, Manjadi P.O.,
Thiruvalla
2. Sales Manager, Deedi Motors Pvt.
Ltd.,Mazhuvangadu, Thiruvalla.
3. Service Manager, Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Churulikodu, Pathanamthitta.
4. Mr. Mohan Basker, Customer Assts. Centre,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
5. The stock file.
