- (1.)THE instant appeal under Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 is preferred against order dated 12.05.2011 rendered by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kashmir (for brevity 'the Commission') by an unsuccessful complainant.
(2.)WHILE dismissing the complaint of the appellant the Commission has observed that the complainant made allegations with regard to the manufacturing defects in respect of Tata Indigo GX Petrol vehicle purchased by him from the respondents but failed to produce any evidence to substantiate and support the allegations. The Commission has referred to the cross-examination of the appellant where in he admitted that the defect concerning emission of smoke from the engine was rectified by the respondents. Accordingly, the Commission reached a conclusion that the complaint was a frivolous piece of litigation and it unnecessarily wasted public time of the Commission. The complaint was, accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-. The Commissioner, however, observed that it was taking a lenient view after it noticed the fact that the appellant was a senior citizen and he has not been a chronic litigant.
We have perused the memorandum of appeal and are of the view that the findings recorded by the Commission do not suffer from any legal infirmity, warranting interference of this Court.

The basic grievance of the appellant before the Commission was that the Tata Indigo GX petrol vehicle did not give promised milage of 20- 22 kilo meters which actually persuaded him to purchase the vehicle. The vehicle in question was running only 16.4 kilo meters per litre. The aforesaid averment was successfully controverted and duly accepted by the Commission.Accordingly complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-. However, we feel that once the appellant is found to be a senior citizen and is also not a chronic litigant then the cost of Rs. 5000/- should not have been imposed. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal by accepting the plea of deleting the imposition of costs of Rs. 5000/-.

(3.)AS a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed but with a rider that the impugned order of the Commission is modified to the extent that the appellant would not be liable to pay any costs.