Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/48/2013

Sri. D.I. Syed Swaleha, S/o Syed Ubedulla - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Mahindra 2 wheelers Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2014

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 04/07/2013

     DISPOSED ON: 22/01/2014

 

BEFORE THE TISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL OF FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO.51/2013 DATED: - 22nd January 2014

PRESENT :-     SRI.V.H.RAMACHANDRA       PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY               MEMBER

                                B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

                SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI   MEMBER

                                B.A., LL.B.,

COMPLAINANT

Sri. D.I. Syed Swaleha, S/o Syed Ubedulla, Aged about 64 years, Advocate, No.62/1, S.R. Manzil, 3rd Cross, TMK Road, Opp., Prasanna Theatre, Chitradurga-577 501. (In Person)

OPPOSITE PARTY

1.The Chief Manager, Mahindra 2 wheelers Ltd., 3rd Floor, Mahindra Towers, P.K.Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018.   2. Regional Manager, Mahindra 2 Wheelers Ltd., No.4025/26, K.R. Main Road, B/w6th and 7th Cross, Jayanagar, 7th Block (West) Bangalore-02 (Op.1 and 2 Rep by Sri. A.P. Murthyun, Advocate)   3. Mr. Syed Ahamed, S/o Lae Syed Imam Sab, M/s Sony Agencies, Sapthagiri Plaza, Prasanna Talkies road, Ist Corss, Chitradurga-577 501.   (Rep by Sri. M.B. Mahnthesappa, Advocate)

 

SMT.G.E. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI, MEMBER.

ORDER

                The above complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties U/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986, praying for the relief of direct the Opposite  parties (here-in called Ops) to take back the Mahindra Two Wheeler DZ-125 bearing No. KA-16-w-9903 and also to direct the Ops to pay the amount of Rs. 64,244/- to the complainant along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and also grant Court cost and such other reliefs.

        2. Complainant stated that the Op.1 is a Head office dealing in Mahindra 2 wheelers at Mumbai, and Op.2 is Regional head Office at Bangalore for Karnataka and Op No.3 is an authorized dealer, selling various types of Mahindra 2 Wheelers at Chitradurga city. At the end of June-2012 and at beginning of July Mahindra 2 Wheelers advertisements like features of the two wheelers, mileage consumption at 55 to 57 kms and  various other impressing features the complainant intending to purchase a Mahindra 2 Wheelers, approached the Op No.3 and sought about features of the  2 wheelers available with him, for which he exhibited following advertisements (a) “Mahindra Duro DZ-125, now even the experts agree Duro DZ-125 is better than Activa” (b) ªÙÊýå ®ÙõÿÚÀý ÀЦѯ¹ÙÖÓ¯ ÌÙÖÊÐ ÀÐÔÍӁ·Ðõ ®ÐÖô¤ÙÖÓ DZ ³Ð·Ð ¹Ð³Ð¤Ð ºÓÀÐÕ ¾ÙÓ¤Ùց·ÐÔ ÊÐÖÜ©¤ý “§Ó¸Ë·Ð¤Ù ¹ÑÀÐÕ ºÀÐÔ–Ù ¤ÐÖ»ÑÂÔ 500/-     –ÐÎйÐÔî ‘ÙÖ®ÐÔ³ÙêÓÀÙ. (c) And it was also assured that the Mahindra Duro DZ 125, will run not less than 55 to 59 Km per one liter petrol.

        3. Complainant further stated that having to all these features and mileage he purchased a brand new Mahindra 2 Wheelers Duro DZ 125 silver body colour bearing Chassis No. MCDMDIBIVCIE:37005 Engine No. MDE-CE-042394 from Op.3 on 05/07/2012. Op.3 delivered the 2 wheeler to the complainant on 11/07/2012 after the 2 wheeler was insured and after registration with RTO, Chitradurga numbered as KA-16-W-9903 on payment of Rs. 54,244/-. Hence there is relation of consumer and Master between complainant and Ops respectively.

        4. Complainant further stated that he began to use the vehicle driving on roads for about 2 to 3 months and astonished to found that the purchased 2 wheeler was giving mileage of 28 or 29 kms per liter petrol as against to 55 to 59 kms per one liter petrol. Immediately complainant contacted Op.3 in person and Op.1 and 2 on phone for which the Op.1 to 3 informed the  complainant that the 2 wheeler will give mileage of 55 to 59 kms after 1 or 2 times of service of 2 wheeler. Accordingly the complainant was got his 2 wheeler provided service at regular intervals i.e. on 14/08/2012 to 05/01/2013 and during March 2013. There was no improvement in the petrol consumption. Again the complainant complained to the op.2 on phone. The Op.2 deputed service Engineer by name Sri. Nishith on two to three times i.e. On 31/10/2012 on 27/11/2012, and on 08/05/2013. The Said service Engineer Changed some parts of 2 wheeler like carborator etc and   the said 2 wheeler was put into test riding and found that the mileage per liter is only about 30 kms after all types services. Ultimately the said service Engineer informed the complainant and assured that there will be improvement in mileage of the two wheeler in due course. But there is no improvement in mileage till today and his assurance also turned furtile like that of Ops 1 to 3. Some mechanics informed the complainant that it is a manufacturing defect, which cannot be cured. Hence the Op.1 to 3 have intentionally cause deficiency in service.  

        4. Complainant further stated that the complainant issued legal Notice to the Op.1 to 3 on 17/04/2013 and  informing them, that the complainant is mislead and duped with regard to petrol/consumption calling upon them to take back above said Mahindra 2 wheeler Duro DZ 125 bearing Reg No.KA-16-W-9903 and to refund the sum of Rs.54,244/- along with Rs. 25,000/- the loss in cured in petrol Consumption mental agony and also towards damages to the complainant the said notice were served on all the Ops. The Op No.1 issued reply Notice on 03/05/2013 denying the averments of notice. Hence this complaint.

        5. The Ops have prevailed on the complainant and misled and duped the complainant by giving false assurance of mileage and made to purchase the Mahindra two wheeler D.Z.125, at the cost of Rs. 54,244/- there by exposed to the complainant for financial loss of Rs. 54,244/- mental agony etc., there by the Ops 1 to 3 have rendered deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on 05/07/2012, 11/07/2012 the date of purchase. The above said vehicle purchased from Op No.3 within the jurisdiction of this forum. Hence this forum is entertain the complaint and prayed for allow the complaint.

        6. On the service of process, Op No.1 and 3  have  appeared through their consels and filed version and Op No.1 denied the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are expressly adverted to and admitted here in Op.1. Stated that in the very first instance the complaint is false, malicious vexacious and in correct and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Hon’ble Forum as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage for the wrongs committed by the complainant alone. The complaint  is thus liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. That the present complaint is not maintainable. The Ops dispute and deny its liability to pay any amount or compensation to the complainant as alleged. That the relationship between the Ops is based on principal to principal basis. Ops after delivering the vehicle to its authorized dealers, it is the duty of the dealer to carry on the after sale service and maintenance of the vehicle. It is further stated that the complainant approached the Op No.3 for the purchase of the said vehicle. Ops stated that there has been no negligence or deficiency in service whatsoever, on part of the Ops. It is further stated that the complainant is trying to implicate the Op.1 and 2 to extract the money. The complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is further stated that the complainant has also signed the satisfactory note after the servicing of the said vehicle. It is because of the rough use of the vehicle, the said vehicle suffered from such problems. There was no in     he-rent defect in the said vehicle.

        7. That the Op No.1 further stated that the said vehicle could not give the desired mileage because said vehicle’s mileage heavily depends on ride quality also highway mileage and city mileage differs drastically. Traffic condition also impact mileage. Therefore these parameters should be noted by this Hon’ble forum before adjudicating upon the instant dispute. It is further stated that the time of purchase of the said vehicle was purchased in an offer where in the complainant was offered Rs. 500/- cash back offer. Thus it was complainant’s own decision to buy the subject vehicle and as alleged he was duped lured etc., complainant. It is put to strict proof.

        8. Op No.1 is a reputed and respected Company registered under the Companies Act-1956 having its registered Office at Mahindra Towers P.K. Kurne chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400018 and engaged in the business of manufacturing of two wheelers, it has a good track record of sustained growth customer satisfaction and innovation. That on 06/08/2012 complainant purchased Duro DZ at Chitradurga chassis No as per invoice MCDMDIBIVCIE 37065. Engine No. MDE-CE-042394 bearing Registration number as KA-16-W-9903. The Op No.1 further stated that the vehicle is still  in active use by the complainant and this complaint is nothing but to extract money from the Ops even after extending help and support to the complainant. It is further stated that always insisted for self driving mileage tested in heavy traffic area where in the mileage will drops on account of continuous breaking and acceleration.

        9. Op No.1 further admits that it is true that the Ops have mentioned that the subject vehicle would give a good mileage, however it is to be considered that the mileage in city will differ from that of highway because of the traffic jams where a person has to apply break and acceleration at regular interval. Op No.1 stated that the averments made in para 3,5,6,8,9.10 and 11 of the complaint are false and completely denied. The entire allegation made by the complainant are totally false and baseless. The  Op No.1 and 2 do not directly deal with the customer. It is the duty of the Op.3 it is further stated that the Op No.3 has time and again attended the said vehicle and has worked to the optimum satisfaction of the complainant following which the complainant has also signed the satisfactory note hence shows that there is no deficiency in service on part  of the Ops. It is stated that the Ops are not liable to pay any amount what So ever to the complainant . There is no deficiency in service no cause of action ever arose against the Ops and his forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the instant complaint filed by the complainant. Hence prayed for dismissal of complaint.

        10. Op No.3 has filed his separate version stated that the averments at para-2,3 and 4 of complaint are true and it is stated that the display of banners at his  show room are true and assurance of mileage at 55 to 59 kms per one liter petrol is also true. These facts are on the basis of banners supplied by the company and mileage is also on the basis of assurance given by the Company from whom we have purchased two wheelers and sold in the Show Room. The averments at para 5 the Two wheeler namely Mahindra Duro DZ 125, i.e. KA-16-W-9903 has been rendered service  at our Show Room Op.3 further stated that Mr. Nishith, the Service Engineer of the Company has replaced certain new parts like corborator etc., to the above said Two wheeler expecting good mileage but expected mileage is not working out of the above said two wheeler. It is true that Op.3 received  the legal notice from complainant but we could reply to the same on the pretext that Op No.1 and 2 are responsible for compliance to the legal notice. Op.3 further stated that it is totally  false that we have mislead the complainant and that he has  exposed to financial loss and mental agony. What has been advertised and assured by the Company we have displayed the banners and assured to our customers so also to the complainant. It is further stated that the Op No.3 is an authorized dealer of Mahindra two wheelers distributed by Op No.1 are being sold on the cost fixed by the company and display of banners in the show room and assurance of mileage are all on the basis of materials supplied and assured to us. Expect this fact we are not responsible for loss to the complainant much-less mental agony caused to him and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

        11. Complainant examined as Pw-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed 18 documents got marked as Ex A-1 to A-18 on behalf of Op No.1 one Sri Kiran Mahyavanshi, Manager legal of Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., examined as Dw-1 by filing affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of the written statement i.e. version and  he has not filed any documents on his side.

        12. Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint is that.

        Point No:1:- Whether the complainant proves that he has gone through various Mahindra 2 wheelers advertisements like features of the 2 wheelers mileage consumption at 55 to 59 kms and various other  impressing features the complainant intending to purchase a Mahindra 2 wheelers approached the Op No.3 and sought about features of the Mahindra Duro DZ 125 and he Exhibited the advertisements and by believing the same the complainant purchased brand New Mahindra 2 wheelers Duro DZ-125, from Op.3 on 05/07/2012 and received the above said vehicle delivery on 11/07/2012 after insured and registration bearing No. KA-16-W-9903 on payment of sum of Rs 54,244/- including insurance premium and registration charges?.

        Point No.2:- Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer of the Op No.1 to 3 and he was purchased 2 Wheelers Mahindra Duro DZ 125 vehicle after use the vehicle driving on road for about 2 to 3 months and found that the about said vehicle was giving mileage of 28 or 29 kms per liter petrol as against the 55 to 59 kms. Per liter petrol and the complainant immediately informed the Ops. The Op.2 deputed the service Engineer on two or three times and the said Engineer changed some parts of 2 wheeler and the said 2 wheeler was put into test riding and found that the mileage per liter is only about 30 kms after all types service. But there is no improvement in mileage till today there is no improvement in petrol consumption and there by Op No.1 to 3 committed deficiency in service?.

        Point No.3:- What order?

        13. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- affirmative.

        Point No.2:- affirmative.

        Point nO.3:- As per final order.

REASONS ON POIN NO.1 AND 2

        14. It is not in dispute the complainant purchased the brand new Mahindra 2 Wheelers Duro DZ 125 silver body colour bearing Chassis No:MCDMDIBIVCIE-37005 Engine No.MDE-CE042394 from Op No.3. As per Ex A-1 sale letter dated 11/07/2012. It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid sum of Rs. 54,244/- to Op.3 cost of the vehicle including insurance premium and registration charges. The above said vehicle registered at RTO, Chitradurga numbered as KA-16-W-9903. As per Ex A-2 to 4, it is not in dispute that the above said vehicle serviced by the Op No.3 show room on 14/08/2012, 05/01/2013 and 31/10/2012 respectively as per Ex A-5 to A-7. It is only in dispute that the said 2 wheeler the complainant has complaint of Low mileage and high fuel consumption. It is only in dispute that the above said two Wheeler given the mileage only 28 or 29 Kms per liter petrol as the assured mileage of 55 kms to 59 kms given by the Ops. It is only in dispute that the Op No.1 to Op.3 have given false assurance by advertisement and there by complainant has been cheated by the act of Op.1 to Op.3 complainant exposed to great financial loss. It is only in dispute that the complainant complained the low mileage to the Ops. Op Company deputed the one Mr. Nishith service Engineer of the Company has replaced certain new parts like corborator etc., to the above said 2 wheeler expecting good mileage but is not working out to the  above said two wheeler.

        15. On perusal of the affidavit evidence and documents filed by of the complainant, he has purchased the Mahindra Duro DZ 125 2 wheeler bearing Chassis No. MCDMDIBIVCIE 37005 Engine No.MDE-CE-042394 from Op No.3 and got delivered the vehicle from Op No.3 on 11/0782012 bearing Registration No.KA-16-W-9903 as per Ex A-1 to A-3. On perusal of the Ex A-7 and Ex A-8 job card no.2590 dated 31/10/2012 shows complainant has complained low mileage 26 kms per liter petrol. Supervisor advice to mechanic shows Ist test taken for ½ liter with given 21-0 kms ½ liter. It’s start 672-3 to End 697 i.e.  21.0 kms per ½ liter petrol. One Mr. Nishith signed the report on 31/10/2012. IInd test taken from the same ½ liter with given 16.8 kms per ½ liter. Started 696.0 End 712.8 i.e. 16.8 kms per ½ liter. IIIrd test done on 27/11/2012 (s) 882.9 (E) 863.8 i.e. 19.1 kms per ½ liter. One Mrs. Nishith signed dated 27/11/2012. On carefull perusal of the  documents Ex A-7 and A-8 Ops service Engineer admits that the above said vehicle give low mileage as against the 55 kms to 59 kms assured by the Ops.

        16. On perusal of complaint, affidavit evidence of complainant, the complainant taken contention that the Complainant has gone through various Mahindra 2 wheelers, mileage consumption at 55 to 57 kms and various other in pressing features, the complainant intending to purchase a Mahindra 2 wheeler, approached the Op.No.3 and sought  about features of the 2 wheelers available with him for which he exhibited following advertisements. (a) “Mahindra Duro DZ 125, now even the experts agree Duro DZ 125 is better than Activa”.  (b) ªÙÊýå ÀЦѯ¹ÙÖÓ¯ ÌÙÖÊÐ ÀÐÔÍӁ·Ðõ ®ÐÖô¤ÙÖÓ DZ ³Ð·Ð ¹Ð³Ð¤Ð ºÓÀÐÕ ¾ÙÓ¤Ùց·ÐÔ ÊÐÖÜ©¤ý “§Ó¸Ë·Ð¤Ù ¹ÑÀÐÕ ºÀÐÔ–Ù ¤ÐÖ»ÑÂÔ 500/-–ÐÎйÐÔî ‘ÙÖ®ÐÔ³ÙêÓÀÙ. (c) And it was also assured that the Mahindra Duro DZ 125 will run not less than 55 to 59 Km per one liter petrol. Having regard to all these features and mileage the complainant purchased a brand new Mahindra Duro 125, 2 Wheeler silver body colour bearing No.MCDMDIBIVCIE-37005 Engine No.MDE-CE-042394 from Op.3 for sum of Rs. 54,244/-on 11/7/2012 including insurance premium and registration charge. The above said vehicle numbered as KA-16-W-9903. As per Ex A-1 to A-4 and A-16  Op.1 to Op.3 admits that the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle. So the complainant is the consumer of the Op.1 to Op.3. Op.1 is the Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of two wheelers. Op.2 is the Regional Head Office at Bangalore for Karnataka and Op.3 is authorized dealer of Op 1 and 2. Op No.1 admits that in his written statement. Op.1 Company registered under Companies Act and engaged in the business manufacturing of two wheelers. So, the complainants the consumer of Op.1 to 3.

        17. Complainant further contended that after use of the above said vehicle driving on roads for about 2 to 3 months and astonished to found that the vehicle was giving mileage of 28 to 29 kms per liter petrol Complainant immediately in-formed the Op.1 to Op.3 complained that the above said vehicle will not give the mileage of 55 to 59 kms as assured by them. Op.2 deputed the one Mr. Nishith service Engineer changed some parts of 2 wheeler and the vehicle was put into test riding and found that the mileage per liter is only 30 kms after all types of service. But there is no improvement in mileage till today. Op 1 to 3 have give false assurance to the complainant there-by committed deficiency in service and committed un-fair trade practice and prayed for allow the complaint for the said reliefs.

18.  On perusal of version filed by the op No.3, its shows that the Op.3 admits the averments made in para 2,3 and 4 of complaint are true and Op.3 has stated that the “display of banners at our show room are true and assurance of mileage 55 to 59 kms per one liter petrol is also true” and Op.3 further stated that “these facts are on the basis of banners supplied by the Company and mileage is also on the basis of assurance given by the company from whom we have  purchased two wheelers and sold in our show room”. Op.3 further stated that the complainant’s vehicle Mahindra Duro DZ 125, i.e. KA-16-W-9903 has been rendered service at our show room it is stated that one Mr. Nishith the service Engineer of the company has replaced the certain new parts like corborator etc. to the above said vehicle expecting good mileage but expecting mileage is not working out to the above said two wheeler. Op.3 clearly admits that the above said two wheeler is not working out expecting mileage. Op.3 further stated that Op.3 has not mislead the complainant what has been advertised and assured by the Company Op.3 have displayed the banners and assured to our customers. So also to the complainant. Op.3 stated that the Op.3 is the authorized dealer of Mahindra Two wheelers, distributed by Op No.1 are being sold on the cost fixed by the Company and display of banners in our show room and assurance of mileage are all on the basis of materials supplied and assured to us. Expect this we are not responsible for loss to the complainant much less mental agony cause to him Op.3 admits that what has been advertised   assured by the company and assurance of mileage are all on the basis of materials supplied by the company Op.3 display of banners in his showroom. On perusal of Ex A-17 and A-18 shows the Mahindra Duro DZ-125, two wheeler giving mileage 59  kms per one liter petrol. On perusal of Ex A-7 and Ex A-8 the above said vehicle purchased by the complainant shows Ist test 21.0 kms per ½ liter, IInd test 16.8 kms per ½ liter IIIrd test 19.1 kms per ½ liter petrol. So, the vehicle was not give good mileage as against 55 to 59 kms per liter petrol assured by the Ops. So, it is clearly shows that the Ops are give false assurance to the complainant and by believing the same complainant purchase it.

        19. Op No.1 denied the contention of the complaint while admitting complainant purchase of Mahindra 2 wheeler Duro DZ 125, bearing no.KA-16-W9903, Op.3 show room Op No.1 admits in his written statement page 6 para wise reply para-3. It is true that Op.3 have mentioned that the subject vehicle would give a good mileage however it is  to be considered that the mileage in city will differ from that of highway because of the traffic jams. When a person has to apply break and acceleration at regular interval Op.1 taken contention that the vehicle is still in active use by the complainant and this complaint is nothing   but to extract money from the Ops even after extending help and support to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. On this contention Ops have not produced any documents on his side and also Op.1 and 2 have not filed any affidavit  evidence of witnesses to support his case. Ops have fail to prove their case because Ops have not filed the affidavit evidence of service Engineer of Company i.e. Mr. Nishith  whom presence and supervision Ist, 2^nd and 3^rd  test ride was done, on 31/10/2012 and 27/11/2012 taken for ½ liter petrol with given 16.8 kms and 19.1 kms respectively as per Job card No. 2590. So, the Ex A-7 and A-8 documents clearly shows that the above said vehicle give low mileage as alleged by the complainant  and also as assured against the 55 to 59 kms per liter petrol by the Ops. So It is clearly shows that the Ops are given false assurance to the complainant and sold the above said vehicle for Rs. 54,244/- including insurance and Registration charges due to the act of the Ops complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.

        20. Complainant himself argued that purchased the vehicle is giving more mileage and like 55 to 59 kms petrol save money but Ops are give false assurance and cheated him there by and complainant suffered financial loss, and mental agony Ops committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice and prayed for allow the complaint with cost.

        21. On the other hand Advocate for Op.1 argued that the Op.1 is a reputed and respected Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its Registered office at Mumbai and engaged in the business of Manufacturing of 2 wheelers. It has a good track record of sustained growth, customer satisfaction and innovation, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The present complaint is not maintainable the Ops dispute and deny its liability to pay any amount or compensation to the complainant as allege and pray for dismissal of the complaint.

        22. On perusal of the entire case records, affidavit evidence and documents, it shows that the Ops have committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice. Ops have given false assurance of mileage 59 kms per liter petrol to the complainant As per Ex A-1 A-7 and A-18 on verifying the Ex A-7 and A-8 the vehicle given mileage 33 to 38 kms per liter petrol. So, the Ops are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant we are referred on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 2011 SAR (Civil) Hon’ble Supreme Court.

     C.N. Anantharam V/s M/s Flat India Limited, and Ors. Etc.,     

     SLP (Civil) No.9896 if 2010L (Arising out of SLP (Civil) m Nos. 21178-21180 of 2009) (From the Judgment and order dated 17/04/2009 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in RP No. 1585,1713 and 2431 of 2006): Decided on 24/11/2010.

     Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Secs, 3 and 14 Manufacturing defect in the vehicle Removal of defects and delivery of vehicle to complainant after having the same properly checked by technical expert-Proper-Petitioner purchased diesel vehicle According to the petitioner, certain defects, particularly in the engine, began to manifest themselves The engine was completely replace-however, petitioner was not satisfied and insisted that vehicle be replaced with a new vehicle or the sale price be refunded complaint-Distt., Forum directed to refund the amount Revision-State Commission  directed respondents to replace the vehicle with a brand new or on failure to do so to refund and amount-National Commission held that respondents after removing the defects, if any deliver the vehicle to appellants in presence of an independent technical expert. Hence, this petition whether the order passed by National Commission was unreasonable-held: No, petition disposed of with the directions that if the expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of amount as directed by State Commission.

        23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there     are inherent manufacturing defects the petitioner /complainant is entitled to refund of amount they said decision is applicable to the case in hand. Therefore we find no merits in the contentions taken by the op No.1 so, the Op No.1 to 3 committed deficiency in service and Op No.1 committed unfair trade practice. So, the Op No.1 to 3 liable to pay the sum of Rs. 54,244/- cost of the vehicle to the complainant and take back the said vehicle. bearing Regi No. KA-16-W-9903. So, the complainant is entitled for sum of Rs. 54,244/- with 12% interest per annum from Op.1 to 3 from the date of complainant i.e. 04/07/2013 till the date of payment and also complainant is entitled for sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- cost of this complaint from Op.1 to 3.

        24. In view of the above said discussion point No.1 and 2 are held affirmative.

        25. On point No.3 as discussed on the above points and for reasons stated there in we pass the following order.

 

 

 

ORDER

It is ordered that complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 is partly allowed.

        It is ordered that the op.1 to Op.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs 54,244/- with 12% interest p.a. to the complainant from the date of complaint i.e. 04/07/2013 to till the payment and Directed the Ops to  take back the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16-W-9903.

        It is further ordered that Op.1 to 3 are directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this complaint to the complainant within two months of this order.

        It is further ordered that the complainant is directed to hand over the two wheeler Mahindra Duro DZ 125, bearing Reg., No. KA-16-W-9903 to the Op.3 after receiving the award amount.

        Accordingly complaint is partly allowed.

 (This order is made with the consent of President and Member after the correction of the draft on 22/01/2014 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                 MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

Kms*