BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                                   Dated this the 28^th day of April 2018

                                                                             Filed on : 21.06.2017

PRESENT:

 Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                              President.

 Shri. Sheen Jose,                                              Member

 Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                   Member.

                            CC.No.240/2017

                                  Between                           

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

         The complainant, a Tourist Taxi Driver by profession purchased Yamaha Motor Cycle from the 2^nd opposite party by exchanging previous motor cycle manufactured by TVS by financing an exchange value of Rs.8,000/- availed an old motor bike.  The complainant availed financial facilities from Delhi based Finance Company, Bussan Auto Finance India Ltd. who is not a party in this case. The complainant was prompted with purchase Yamaha Motor Cycle only on the assurance of the opposite party that it fetch 66 kms per litre of petrol.  The complainant was not getting promised mileage for the vehicle, when it is informed to the opposite parties, the opposite parties solicit to the complainant telling that the mileage would improve after the service.  However, despite completion of all said services the complainant was getting only 30 kms of mileage per one litre of petrol.  The Advocate notice was issued to the opposite parties and also to the Finance Company.  It was only the complainant came to know that the Finance Company was collecting EMI from the complainant, the calculation was that the complainant had availed amount of Rs.50,800/- as against the original purchase amount availed by the complainant that Rs.41,500/-. According to the complainant the manufacturer and dealer of the motor cycle had intimated the complainant that the scooter would get 66 kms of mileage.  The Finance Company when he had made arrangements of hire purchase also had cheated in by manipulating the principal amount while fixing the EMI.  However, the complainant had restricted the complaint only against the manufacturer for having given false promise regarding the mileage of scooter.  The complainant seeks directions against the opposite parties to give 20,000/- by way of compensation for the reduction in mileage as against mileage of 66 km/litre as they promised, through his complaint.

2)     Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1^st, 3^rd opposite parties and dealer had not accepted the notice and remained ex-parte.  The 2^nd opposite party, the dealer, MPN Yamaha in Ernakulam District appeared and resisted the complaint by filing their version contending inter-alia as follows.

3)     The 2^nd opposite party did not give warranty regarding mileage of the vehicle.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to get his motor cycle exchanged with a new one and accordingly the 2^nd opposite party had purchased an old vehicle of the complainant by availing  Rs.12,000/- and the remaining amount were received on behalf of the complainant from a Finance Company as alleged.  The 2^nd opposite party is not aware of any manufacturing defects for the vehicle given to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party had not given any promise for mileage and hence seeks exoneration as the complainant is ill formed.

4)     Issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs?

5)      Issue No. (i)

          Exbt.A1 produced by the complainant is a Brochure issued by the manufacturer wherein it is shown “great mileage 66 km per litre”. It is also written that the mileage mentioned is not standard tests conditions.  Therefore, if at all the incitation in Exbt.A1 is promised by the manufacturer such promise was on condition with vehicle had to be used under standard tests conditions. It would go to show that the mileage promised was for standard condition of the usage of the vehicle.  The mileage of the vehicle depends on various conditions such as driving habits, quantity inpulation tyre in rate conditions and driving the vehicle etc. which is a fact that the opposite parties had promised that the vehicle would get 66 kms under standard tests conditions not mentioned in their brochure causes to presume that the vehicle would fetch such mileage in ordinary running conditions.  It is only an apprehension of the complainant that he was subjected to deficiency in service from the opposite parties.  Therefore, the 1^st issue is found against the complainant.

6)      Issue No. (ii)

          Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue No. (ii).

7)      In the result, we find that this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly this complaint is dismissed with no costs.

         Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of April 2018.

                                                          Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President                                                                Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member.

                                                         Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                                   Forwarded by Order

                                                                   Senior Superintendent

                                                APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits         ::    Nil

Depositions        :

PW1           :         Benny Varghese        

Date of Despatch        :

                             By Hand    :

                             By post      :

 ………………………