Complaint filed on: 29.10.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 02.08.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.2395/2013

DATED THIS THE 2^nd AUGUST OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Krishna Murthy

aged about 49 years,

s/o Rathna Naidu,

No.24/3, 2^nd cross, Sameerapura,

Kempegowda nagar,

Bengaluru-19

By Adv.Sri.Pratap Yadav   

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. The Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

Registered head office

at Akurdi

Pune-411035

India

Rep. by its Authorized signatory

2. M/s.Khivraj Motors,

no.38 & 39, 2^nd main, Sudhamanagar,

Lalbagh Road,

Bengaluru-27.

Rep. by its Manager

By Adv.Sri.Gajendra.S

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite parties no.1/manufacturer & Opposite party no.2/dealer/service centre for not covering the alleged assured mileage by their sold autorickshaw and thereby has claimed the total compensation amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 18%.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the autorickshaw of Opposite party no.1/company sold by the Opposite party no.2 in his favour by delivering the same on 16.08.13, after it was registered with no.KA-05-AE-1776 was not giving good mileage even after he waited till the completion of the first service as assured by the Opposite party no.2.  After 1226 kms, the first service was done on 07.09.13 by the Opposite party no.2 and then itself it was giving the mileage of 16 to 18 kms instead of 25 kms. The Opposite party no.2 done the gas tuning only, falsely assuring that the autorickshaw will give 24 kms mileage. He brought it to the notice of Opposite party no.1 also by sending sms wide NCR.No.137413. No action was taken later also. He issued the legal notice dtd.05.10.13 and it was not complied.  The Opposite parties went on postponing the matter on one or the other pretext. He demanded for rectification and hence this complaint is filed along with all relevant documents for the deficiency in their service which made him to suffer from low income in his daily earnings.

          3. The Opposite party no.2 has filed the version and the Opposite party no.1 has adopted the same. They contended that his complaint is filed with malafide intention to gain illegally on false grounds, though the vehicle is running in good condition without having any manufacturing defects. The Complainant might have taken the loan from SBM. The delivery was made subject to making of payments towards the entire cost of the vehicle and he paid the last balance amount of Rs.1,360/- on 17.08.13 i.e. within 4 days of launching of the same. The mileage of the vehicle is depending upon the road conditions, driving style, traffic and other relevant factors prevailing at the time of using the vehicle on the road. They never assured about the mileage, more so, to an extent of 25 kms. In fact in Bengaluru city, mileage of 16 to 18 kms is considered as very good. Instead of admitting the fact of the good mileage, the allegations are being made. After the issuance of legal notice dtd.09.10.13, they got the presence of the vehicle to their service centre and found that the vehicle had run 4509 kms and was running in good condition without giving problem and satisfaction certificate was issued by the Complainant himself in writing and hence no reply was issued to the legal notice. This complaint is filed with unclean hands. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

          4. The Complainant and the service manager of the Opposite party no.2 filed their affidavit evidences relying on Ex-A1 to A33 and Ex-B1 to Ex-B7 documents respectively. The Opposite parties have relied on Ex-A20, A21, A22, A23, A27 & A28 documents also.  Written arguments were also filed by both sides. Arguments were heard.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite parties in connection with their sold autorickshaw no.KA-05-AE-1776 in not giving the alleged assured mileage of 24 to 25 kms ?  
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant got the quotation of Opposite party no.2 about four stroke autorickshaw as per Ex-A1 on 15.06.13 and by making payments as per Ex-A2 with the help of the loan from the State Bank of Mysuru/Ex-A5, purchased the autorickshaw on 17.08.13 wide Ex-A3/tax invoice, Ex-A4/sale certificate & Ex-A7/registration certificate. He being one of the autorickshaw permit holder as per Ex-A9 and being the driving license holder as per Ex-A11 started operating the autorickshaw.  

8. He issued legal notice to both the Opposite parties wide Ex-A12 dtd.05.10.13 through post wide Ex-A13/Postal Acknowledgements. The said autorickshaw shown in Ex-A15, A18 and A24 photos are supported by ‘B’ register extract Ex-A16, A17 & A19.

          9. The Complainant has relied on job cards Ex-A20, A21, A22, A23, A27, A28 along with Ex-A2 & A4 and copies of bills Ex-A29 to 32 about the autorickshaw and Ex-A33 about his alleged ill health. The same set of documents of autorickshaw were produced/relied on by the Opposite parties namely Ex-B1/sale certificate, Ex-B2 & B3 about payments, Ex-B4/delivery note, Ex-B2/job card. The Opposite parties have also produced the consumer satisfaction report/Ex-B6 dtd.09.10.13 and the invitation card/Ex-B7 about the launching of the category of such autorickshaws.

          10. In Ex-B6/consumer satisfaction report, the Complainant in his own handwriting has informed that the Opposite party no.2 has carried out the repair work by rectifying his autorickshaw especially in gas tank and the autorickshaw has shown the coverage of 25 kms. He has signed by mentioning his mobile number and the date 09.10.13. In Ex-26/letter dtd.30.12.13, he has mentioned about Ex-B6 confirming the coverage of 24 kms during test drive. The Complainant has further alleged that the said 24 kms coverage reduced day by day and came to the extent of 15 kms and thereby the tank is required to be replaced and later filed this complaint on 29.10.13.

          11. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite party no.2 has assured him about the mileage of 24 kms. The Opposite parties have denied such assurances. The Complainant could have produced the manuals, warranties and brochures etc., of the autorickshaw to show where exactly such assurances about the mileage are given. The Complainant instead of producing the same has produced large number of documents, most of which are irrelevant to this case. The Complainant has not produced the expert report to show how such autorickshaws are running showing the mileage as expected by him and also to show why his autorickshaw is not giving the same result. In the absence of such documentary evidence and the expert report the allegations of the Complainant are remained as bald allegations and they cannot be relied on in connection with the allegations against the Opposite parties. He has not explained as to what he understood the test drive and how it differs from running of autorickshaw in the congested roads of Bengaluru city. Thereby he has not explained the contention of the Opposite parties that the mileage of the vehicle is depending upon the road conditions, driving style, traffic and other relevant factors prevailing at the time of using the vehicle on the road. In the absence of such explanations the said contention of the Opposite parties cannot be brushed aside. In the result the Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute no.1 and accordingly it is answered in the negative.

          12. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.2395/2013 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 2^nd August of 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s