O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. Claiming an amount of Rs. 85,000/- being the value of the vehicle, compensation for mental agony and costs of the complaint, the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
2 The allegations in the complaint in brief are that the 1st opposite party is authorized dealer and 2nd opposite party is service provider, department cum manufactures of Bazaz vehicles. As per the publication issued by the opposite parties the vehicle Discover 100 C C4 G has good mileage and giving kilometer. Mileage and on observing the said publication the complainant purchased Discover 100 C C4 G on 06.10.2010 from opposite party. At the time of purchase warranty was given to him by 1st opposite party. Later the vehicle was assigned the number as AP 5 CG 806.
3 It is also the version of complainant since the beginning the vehicle is giving low mileage i.e. 55 to 60 kilometers but not 91 as advertised by the company. He also gave the vehicle for 2 services on 17.10.2012 and 21.01.2013. He also informed 1st opposite party with regard to the low mileage but they did not respond. The technician of the 1st opposite party also checked the vehicle number of times. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Later he also issued notice to opposite parties, though they received the same, failed to respond. Hence he was constrained to file this complaint for return of the amount along with interest and also damages for mental agony suffered by him.
4 The 1st opposite party filed their written version and it is adopted by 2nd opposite party. They denied the material allegations leveled against them and further according to them the complainant suppressed material facts. According to them ever customer is entitled for 3 free services within 240 days o 10,000 kilometers of running of the vehicle from the date of purchase whichever is earlier. They can also avail 4 paid services within a period of 120 days from each last service. It is also their version the complainant was complaining about some small problems on his regular service visits and the same was being attended by them. In the last week of June, 2013 itself which is later date of issuance of notice the vehicle was attended with all the complaint’s of it’s job card and they were rectified properly and after satisfied with everything the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. Thereafter there was no occasion for him to visit complaining less mileage. Thus disputing deficiency of service on their part, they sought dismissal of the complaint.
5 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed by him?
6 Point No.1: There is no dispute about the complainant purchasing the vehicle from the opposite parties. It is also not in dispute about his availing 2 free services and also later he visited 1st opposite party for servicing but opposite party vehemently denied with regard to the complaint of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that though it is advertised by the opposite parties that the vehicle in question gives 91 kilometer per liter of consumption, in fact the vehicle was giving only the mileage of 55 to 60 kilometer. Inspite of his approaching 1st opposite party, the said defect was not rectified.
7 To prove his version the complainant furnished his chief affidavit and marked 8 documents. Ex.A1 is cash bill, Ex.A2 is office copy of lawyer’s notice, Ex.A3 is pamphlet issued by the opposite party, Ex.A4 is temporary certificate of registration, Ex.A5 is Registration certificate, Ex.A6 is xerox copy of driving licence, Ex.A7 is insurance certificate and Ex.A8 is acknowledgment of 1st opposite party.
8 On the other the 1st opposite party furnished the affidavit of its Branch Manager who reiterated their case as set out in the written version and they got marked 2 documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 which are owner’s manual issued by the company and satisfaction voucher duly signed by the complainant.
9 At the outset it may be pointed out that thought it is the grievance of the complainant the vehicle in question was giving mileage of 55 to 60 kilometers instead of 91 kilometers as advertised by 2nd opposite party except his chief affidavit he has not produced any other material to show that in fact the vehicle was giving only the mileage of 55 to 60 kilometers as claimed by him.
10 On the other hand the opposite parties vehemently disputed by the complainant and they mainly banks on Ex.B2 which is satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant who has taken delivery of the vehicle on 28.06.2013 which is subsequent to issuance of notice on 07.06.2013. A perusal of Ex.B2 would indicate the complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle duly repaired and he found the performance of the vehicle was to his satisfaction. Admittedly he has not mentioned his grievance in the said certificate and when he himself signed the said satisfaction voucher which is subsequent to issuance of notice now he can’t complain about any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence what is clear is at first instance the complainant failed to produce any expert evidence to show that in fact the vehicle in question was giving only mileage 55 to 60 kilometers per liter and secondly he himself signed in Ex.B2 the satisfaction voucher. Hence under these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus this point is answered against the complainant.
11. Point No.2: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 27th day of April, 2015.
Sd/-xxxxx Sd/-xxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
Sri Vatadi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
For opposite parties:
Sri Chakka Venkata Ramana Murthy, Branch Manager
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Cash bill issued by Sai Motor Plaza to the complainant
Ex.A2 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A3 Pamphlet issued by the opposite party
Ex.A4 Temporary certificate of registration
Ex.A5 Registration certificate
Ex.A6 Xerox copy of driving licence
Ex.A7 Insurance certificate issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Ex.A8 Acknowledgment of 1st opposite party.
For opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Owner’s manual issued by the company
Ex.B2 Satisfaction voucher duly signed by the complainant.
Sd/-xxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
