Advocate Shreyas S. Adyanthaya
for the complainant
Advocate Suresh B. Gujarathi
for the Opponents
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 10th April 2013
This complaint is filed by a consumer for deficiency in service who had purchased Maruti Ritz car from the Opponents. The Opponent Nos.1, 2 and 5 are the Chairman, Managing Director and Manager of the Maruti Company. The Opponent Nos. 3 and 4 are the Managing Director and Manager of the Dealer Sai Service Station. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] The complainant has purchased Maruti Suzuki Ritz Petrol Car from the Opponents and as per the assurance the consumption of the petrol of the said model was advertised as 17.7 km per liter. He has purchased the said car on 28/7/2009. The car is drove by his son and it was found that the average per liter was 10-11 km per liter without air conditioner in normal city driving conditions. The son of the complainant immediately rushed to the Opponent No.4 and informed this fact. But he was casually told that the car will give mileage of 17.7 km per liter after three free services. He had waited as per the directions of the opponent and also gave feed back by e-mail to the opponent No.4 and informed that the average of the petrol consumption is 10-11 km per liter.
On persuation the son of the complainant was advised to visit service station of the Opponent No.4 for Top-Up Test i.e. by filling up fuel tank with maximum limit and drive it for 300 kms and then top it up again and find out the mileage by diving 300 (number of kms. driven) by the amount of petrol used in liters. The son of the complainant personally took test twice but not satisfied with the average of the said car. Again various technicians, engineers and other officials took Top-Up Test of the said vehicle for 3-4 times. But the average of the said car was found upto 12 kms per liter. Hence ultimately the complainant come to the conclusion that the opponent has misrepresented that mileage of the said petrol car is 17.7 km per liter. It is the case of the complainant that this amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as the Opponents have misrepresented in its brochure that the said model is giving average of 17.7 km per liter. The complainant has prayed for return of price of the car i.e Rs. 4,72,261/-, interest on the said amount @ 18% p.a. Rs.1,55,846/-, cost of petrol Rs.40,980/- and interest on that amount Rs.13,523/-. The complainant has also asked compensation for mental harassment and agony to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and exemplary cost for unfair trade practice to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The total claim of the complainant is Rs.16,82,432/-.
[2] The Opponents appeared in the Forum through Advocate and resisted the claim by filing written version. The contents of the complaint are flatly denied. It is specifically denied that the Opponents had made false representation that the model gives average of 17.7 km per liter. It is also denied that there is deficiency in service and defect in the goods. It is the case of the Opponents that the average of the vehicle is depending upon several factors such as gear change pattern, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance of vehicle, road conditions, driving habits etc. The Opponent has flatly denied that the car which is purchased by the complainant is giving low mileage hence that amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Opponent has also contended that the complainant has made exaggeration while claiming compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence which is produced by both the parties, hearing the argument of both counsel and considering the pleadings of both parties following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that the average of the car in dispute is less than 17.7 km per liter ? | In the affirmative |
2 | Whether complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice ? | In the affirmative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS-
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
The complainant has produced in all 8 documents alongwith list dated 30/5/2011. These are office copies of notices, original sale brochure, e-mail, copies of documents showing ownership of car as well as free service coupons. It is not in much dispute that the complainant has purchased Maruti Ritz car from the Opponent Nos. 1 to 5. Brochure which is produced by the complainant is showing that it is represented that the car will give 17.7 km per liter average. The documentary evidence is further disclosing that the complainant had visited the showroom and workshop of the opponent for various times for free servicing and for taking fuel test. The complainant has mostly relied upon his own affidavit and various rulings which are submitted alongwith list dated 14/3/2013.
It is the case of the opponents that the complainant was satisfied by the average of the car and he has made false complaint about the low average of the said car. It is the case of the complainant that he had visited the workshop for many times and all the while he was advised to take top-up test. The said test was conducted for 4-5 times. But at all times he found that the average of the car was less than 12 kms i.e. less than which is assured. In order to rebut this contention the opponents did not file counter affidavit of the technician, engineer and officials of their office to show that the average of the car was 17.7 km per liter as alleged. It has been tried to argue on behalf of the opponents that the complainant himself admitted that the average of the said car is satisfactory in the job card. It is significant to note that this fact is not at all referred in the written version of the opponents and at the time of final argument this point is raised on behalf of the opponents. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the job order place, date of delivery as well as kms was kept blank in the job card. The said card is manipulated and prepared only in order to support the contentions. In that context he has placed his reliance upon the ruling of III (2008) CPJ 32 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisiosn, Bangalore in case of Narendra Reddy vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. & Ors. It has been observed in the said ruling that the entry made on the reverse of job card is ambiguous and unclear hence it cannot be considered to held that the consumer was satisfied.
In the present proceeding it is crystal clear that opponents have failed to bring on record that the disputed car is actually giving average of 17.7 km per liter. In such circumstances I held that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
It reveals from the purshis filed by the complainant dated 14/3/2013 that he had traveled the total distance of 26,300 kms till 14/3/2013. In such circumstances the replacement of the car as well as refund of refund of price of the car cannot be contemplated. However the complainant is entitled for compensation on the ground of deficiency in service as the average of the said car is not as assured. Eventhough it is admitted for the sake of convenience that average of the car is depending upon various factors such as gear change pattern, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance of vehicle, road conditions, driving habits etc. Still the opponents have failed to prove by taking various tests that the average of the car is 17.7 km per liter. Hence I held that the complainant is entitled for compensation on the ground of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. He is also entitled to get compensation for physical and mental torture as well as costs of the complaint. After considering the various factors which have been required for working out the average of the petrol car I held that the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade practice, Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical torture as well as Rs.5000/- by way of costs of proceeding. I answer points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by selling Ritz Car to the complainant, which is not giving average as per the assurance.
3. The Opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant lumpsum amount of Rs.90,000/- towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental and physical torture and costs of the proceedings within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place-Pune
Date- 10/04/2013
