DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 201 of 19-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 15-12-2009 <br /> <br /> Jasvir Singh, aged 37 years S/o Mukhtiar Singh, R/o Village Chak Atar Singh Wala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Tara Automobiles, Authorised Maruti Dealers, Opposite ITI, Mansa Road, Bathinda through its Proprietor<br /> 2.Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Amanpal Singh, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 1. <br /> Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 2. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he intended to purchase a car and after seeing an advertisement given by opposite party No. 2 and on the allurement of the officials of opposite party No. 1 that Maruti Alto Car manufactured by it gives mileage of 23.2 Km per Ltr, he purchased the same from opposite party No. 1 against cash payment of Rs. 2,58,629/- vide receipt No. 682. When he started using the car, he noticed that it was not giving proper mileage and this fact was also brought to the notice of the concerned official of opposite party No. 1 who assured him that mileage will improve after the vehicle has run for 10,000 Kms. At the time of 3rd service when the car had completed running of 12011 it was still giving less mileage, so he again brought the matter to the notice of the concerned official of opposite party No.1 for doing the needful but he was asked him to come after some days as the machine for checking mileage was out of order. Later on the officials of opposite party No. 1 checked the mileage which was found 17.1 Km per 1.2 Ltr and 19.1 Km. Per 1.4 Ltr which was quite less. He asserts that opposite party No. 2 has been giving advertisement in the print media that Maruti Alto Car is most fuel efficient car and Alto Car bearing No. DL-2CAG-7052 of Shri Anil Yadav has given mileage of 34.55 Km/Ltr in “Alto Let's Go Rally” that was held in New Delhi on 13th July, 2008 in which 105 Alto owners participated and top ten participants achieved outstanding average mileage of 32.41 Km per Ltr and average mileage achieved by other participants was 26.24 Km per Ltr. He alleges that when Alto Cars give mileage of over 23.2 Kms per ltr as claimed by the opposite parties, his car certainly has some manufacturing defect. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace his car with a new car of same model and to pay him compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for physical and mental tension and Rs. 30,000/- on account of financial loss besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.<br /> 2. The opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file it; he is estopped from filing it; he has not come before this Forum with clean hands; intricate questions of fact and law are involved which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary procedure and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant had purchased the car in question on 30-07-2007 while the advertisement regarding giving mileage of 23.2 Km per Ltr was published in the news paper much later i.e. in March, 2008. It has been pleaded that car in question could have given much more mileage than it was giving, if the complainant got the services of the car conducted at the proper and relevant time. It has been denied that complainant was ever allured or defective car was sold to him. It has been pleaded that mileage of the car depends upon various factors including its proper maintenance and services required to be conducted from time to time.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice; it is time barred and complaint is without cause of action against it. On merits, it has been submitted that it being manufacturer of car in question stands warranty to all its new vehicle for a term of 24 months or 40000 Kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. Since he purchased the vehicle in question on 31-07-07, the warranty obligation of it has concluded by efflux of time on 30-07-2009. It has been pleaded that mileage of the vehicle depends on several factors such as driving habits, gear change in a predetermined pattern, AC switched off; standard air pressure in the tyres, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality-non adulterated standard fuel, proper maintenance of vehicle etc., The average of the vehicle is certified as per ARAI certification as per Motor Vehicle Act/rules. The vehicle in question is defect free and in roadworthy condition. It has been stated that vehicle had covered 26307 Kms within 24 months of purchase and if the vehicle had any manufacturing defect, the same could not have covered such a huge mileage. <br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-7, photocopy of cutting of newspaper Ex. C-2, photocopy of receipt Ex. C-3, photocopy of sale certificate Ex. C-4, photocopy of cutting of news paper Ex. C-5 and photocopy of Job Sheet Ex. C-6.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Tanuj Gupta Ex. R-1, photocopy of Inspection Sheet Ex. R-2, photocopy of warranty policy Ex. R-3, photocopies of Job Cards Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-7 and opposite party No. 1 produced on record affidavit of Sh. G S Sekhon, Works Manager Ex. R-8, photocopies of vehicle history record Ex. R-9 to Ex. R-11, photocopy of Alto Owner's Manual & Service Booklet Ex. R-12 and photocopy of press releases reg. Standard test condition Ex. R-13.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and written submissions of the parties.<br /> 7. Recapitulation of the facts would show that Alto Car was purchased by the complainant on the allurement of the officials of opposite party No. 1 and the advertisement given by opposite party No. 2 regarding 23.2 Km/Ltr mileage of Maruti Alto Car. He purchased the Alto Car manufactured by opposite party No. 2 from opposite party No. 1 on 30-07-07 against cash payment of Rs. 2,58,629/- vide receipt No. 682 dated 30-07-07. <br /> 8. The complainant alleges that the vehicle in question is continuously giving less mileage. He went to opposite party No. 1 for service of the car in question and its officials checked its mileage which was 17.1 Km/per 1.2 Ltr and 19.1 Km/per Ltr which was quite less. He alleges that opposite party No. 2 has been giving advertisement in the print media that Maruti Alto Car is most fuel efficient car and Alto Car bearing registration No. DL-2CAG-7052 of Shri Anil Yadav has given mileage of 34.55 Km/Ltr in “Alto Let's Go Rally” that was held in New Delhi on 13th July, 2008 in which 105 Alto owners participated and top ten participants achieved outstanding average mileage of 32.41 Km/Ltr and the average mileage achieved by other participants was 26.24 Km/Ltr. He has also alleged that his vehicle has manufacturing defect.<br /> 9. On the other hand the version of the opposite parties is that the complainant had purchased the car on 30-07-09 whereas the advertisement regarding mileage 23.2 Km/Ltr was published in the news paper much later from the date of purchase i.e. in March, 2008. Opposite party No. 1 offered free first three services of car in question which were required to be conducted on the mileage of 1000 Kms, 5000 Kms and 10000 Kms, respectively, but the complainant failed to get the service of the car at its required time. The car in question could have given much more mileage than it was giving, if the complainant got the service of the car conducted at proper and relevant time. <br /> 10. As per evidence brought on record by opposite party No. 1, the complainant got first service conducted on 18-09-07 at 2212 Kms mileage, 2nd on 03-01-2008 at 6463 Kms and 3rd on 02-06-2008 at 12011 Kms vide Job Cards Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-6 respectively, whereas as per Alto Owner's Manual & Service Booklet Ex. R-12, he was required to get first service conducted on completion of mileage of 1000 Kms, 2nd on 5000 Kms and 3rd on 10000 Kms., which he has failed to do so. He time and again violated the terms and conditions of warranty policy and shown negligence in proper servicing and maintenance of the car. Moreover, the perusal of above said Job Card reveals that during the services of the car, he did not point out any alleged problem with respect of low mileage which shows that at that time he was not having any complaint regarding low mileage and this story is a after thought. <br /> 11. Further more, we are of the opinion that in addition to proper maintenance of the vehicle, the average/mileage also depends upon various other factors like traffic conditions, driving habits, fuel quality and standard air pressure in the tyres etc.,<br /> 12. The contention of the complaint that the vehicle has manufacturing defect is devoid of merit on the ground that if the vehicle has any manufacturing defect, the same could not have covered such a huge mileage within a short span of time. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove his this allegation.<br /> 13. In the result, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-12-2009 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br /> <br />