SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint seeking replacement of the vehicle, compensation, costs etc. The averments in the complaint in brief is as follows: The complainant purchased a motor cycle CD Deluxe bearing Engine No. 07-B 22- E 82086 and chassis No.07-B 23 F 29326 and Registration No. KL 23- 6298 on 30.3.2007 availing a loan from HDFC Bank. At the time of purchase the Motor cycle had a milage of 74.76 kms./ litre After 1st service on 18.4.2007 the mileage came down to 60 Kms/ litre. After the 2nd service which was on 18.6.08 the mileage came down below 50 kms. The vehicle also developed starting trouble and excess smoke came out from the silencer. Thereupon he took the vehicle to opp.party 5 where the starting trouble was rectified but the mileage did not improve. After 3rd, 4th , 5th and 6th Services the vehicle developed new complaints and despite contacting opp.parties 1 and 2 also no relief has been obtained. The complainant bonafide believe that the vehicle has manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint. Opp.parties 1 and 2filed a joint version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is filed as an experimental one. The complaint is filed 1½ years after the purchase of the motor cycle which itself would reveal the lacks of bonafides . The service Engineer of opp.party 1 went along with the complainant for the mileage test as averred in para 5 of complaint. For 100 ml of petrol the bike traveled 8 Kms., in one direction and 11 Kms. in return trip. The variation in the results is due to traffic conditions and other factors. The allegations in other paras are false and hence denied. The complainant has not filed any written complaint from which itself it is clear that the complaint is not true. Constant application of brake, clutch frequent changing of gear while driving in a town like Karunagappally having heavy traffic, narrow and damaged roads, quality and quantity of fuel etc will affect mileage. The vehicle has no manufacturing defect. Hence the opp.parties 1 and 2 prays to dismiss the complaint. Opp.parties 3 and 4 filed a separate joint version and oopp.party 5 filed a separate version with more or less identical contentions. The evidences consists of Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the Motor cycle lhas any manufacturing defect? 2. Whether there is deficiency in service? 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P7 are marked. For the opp.party D1. is marked. POINTS: The main contention of the complainant is that his motor cycle manufactured by opp.party 1 and serviced by the other opp.parties is not getting the offered mileage, but the mileage reduces after each service which is due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Though manufacturing defect is alleged the complainant has not taken any steps to establish the same by adducing expert evidence. It is well settled that when manufacturing defect is alleged the same has to be established by adducing expert evidence which is lacking in this case. Therefore we hold that the allegation of manufacturing defect is unfounded. It is not disputed that the vehicle had run 19000 Kms. by the time when this complaint was filed more than 1 ½ year after purchase. Though the complainant would contend that there was considerable reduction in mileage after each service there is no material worth believable in this regard. The job card or the service book relating to the relevant service other than Exts. P5 to 7 which relates to the period after 7/08 were produced by the complainant. So the complainant’s case that there was reduction in mileage after each service cannot be believed. Even the complainant has admitted that the mileage of a vehicle depends on various aspects . The learned counsel for opp.parties 1 and 2 argued that optimum mileage can be achieved only under standard test driving conditions. Constant application of brakes, clutch and frequent changing of gear hamper the vehicle from achieving optimum mileage. Coupled with these is the heavy traffic and narrow roads filled with potholes, quality of fuel. So the reduction in mileage cannot be attributed to manufacturing defect. Ext. D1 is the motor cycle receipt report proved through the complainant. The complainant asPW.1 admitted that what is shown therein is correct. Ext. D1 is dated 25.3.09 ie. during the pendency of this complaint. Ext. D1 shows that the mileage of the motor cycle on that day is 71.4 kms. . Ext. D1 also cut at the root of the contention of the complainant that the mileage of his motor cycle is very low. For all that has been discussed above we hold that the complainant failed to establish that the motor cycle has any manufacturing defect and that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. . I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Binu List of documents for the complainant P1. – RC Book P2. – Policy certificate P3. – Repayment schedule P4. – Letter P5. –Cash bill P6. – Service Job card P7. – Service Job card .. | 
