Decided on June 09,2009

Anil Jose And Ors Respondents


- (1.)BY the order dated 13.7.2004 of CDRF, Idukki in OP No. 38/04, the opposite party is under direction to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 50,000 each with compensation of Rs. 1,500 as costs to be paid within 30 days, failing which 12% interest per annum was ordered from the date of default till the date of payment. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party.
(2.)THE complainants who had purchased three vehicles from the opposite party had approached the Forum below claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 each or in the alternative to return the price of the vehicles or replace the same with compensation. The case put forth by the complainants is that the vehicles purchased by them from the authorized dealer of the opposite party did not fetch the promised mileage of 100 kms. per litre, though the opposite party had assured them that after 3 services the promised mileage would be received. It is the further case of the complainants that even after the 3 services the mileage continued to be less than 45 Kms per litre. It was also submitted by them that the opposite party had given wide advertisement and it was as per the advertisement that they had purchased the vehicles. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed praying for directions to pay Rs. 1,00,000 each to the complainant and also to replace the vehicle or in the alternative to refund the price of the vehicle.
(3.)THE opposite party filed version inter alia contending that the Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint and that the mileage offered was under standard test conditions. It was submitted by the opposite party that the advertisement was based on the test result issued by Automobile Research Association of India (ARAI), Government of India and that there are so many attenuating circumstances for getting 100 kms per litre such as terrain in which the vehicle is used, the tyre pressure, driving habits of the driver, condition of the clutch and brake, pay load, carburetor tuning and periodic maintenance, etc. The main stress was given to the contention that the opposite party had no such dealer as stated by the complainants and that the complaint was bad for mis -joinder of cause of action and parties. Contending that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the 2nd and 1st complainants as PWs1 and 2; Exts. P1 to P12 on the side of the complainants. On the side of the opposite party the area Manager of the opposite party was examined as DW1 and documents R1 to R3 were marked.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.