M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The second and third opposite parties in C.C.70/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri, are the appellants.
(2.) The first respondent in this appeal, who is the complainant, had purchased a vehicle, Eicher 11.10 Turbo, manufactured by the third opposite party from its authorized service dealer/second opposite party on 27.08.2003, on the assurance given by the opposite parties, that the vehicle will give mileage of 8 to 9 kms per litre. But it has given only 5.3 kms per litre, which was reported to the opposite parties. Not only that, on 31.01.2003, the vehicle broke down due to cease of engine. Though the second opposite party fixed the fuel pump, upon complaint on 13.5.2004, there was no improvement and the vehicle has not had the capacity of pickup, when it was reported, a gear box was given, not belonging to the third opposite party, thereby the opposite parties have committed negligent act, as well as deficiency in service, adopting unfair trade practice also. Despite issuance of legal notice, the opposite parties failed to replace the vehicle, which had caused financial loss, as well as mental agony, totaling a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. Hence, a consumer complaint, for replacement of the vehicle as well for recovery of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation was filed.
(3.) The opposite parties in their Common Written Version, admitting the sale of the vehicle in favour of the complainant, disputing other allegations, including negligent act as well as deficiency in service, opposed the complaint, inter alia, further contending that at no point of time, they have informed the complainant that the vehicle would yield or give mileage of 8 to 9 kms per litre, that whenever the vehicle was brought for free service, it was attended promptly, that the mileage of the vehicle, will depend upon so many factors, including the manner of driving, that the complainants family adopting rowdism, even attempted to prevent the sale of the vehicle, that in spite of all these things, the gear box of the vehicle was replaced on 23.09.2004, though the existing gear box was in good condition, since requested by the complainant and her husband, that since the purchase of the vehicle is for the commercial purpose, the Consumer Forum cannot decide the case, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;