State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amlendu Kumar vs Swadeshi Auto (P). Ltd. & Anr. on 23 July, 2018
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 23.07.2018 First Appeal- 935/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 18.07.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 67/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (III), Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058) In the matter of: Amlendu Kumar, Central Processing Centre, Plot No. 3 A, Sector-10, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. .....Appellant Versus Shri Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Shri Sundar Lal, R/o U-16, Ground Floor, Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016. .....Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President 1.
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes Justice Veena Birbal, President
This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the order dated 18.07.2013 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum New Delhi, Janakpuri in CC-67/2008 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed.
Briefly the facts are that the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had purchased Bajaj XCD 125 bike which was equipped with new PTSSI engine having 125 CC engine capacities and 109 KMPL. He had purchased the new bike on 19.09.2017 by paying requisite price. It was alleged that he was convinced by the respondent/OP at the time of purchase that bike would give 109Km/litre mileage (in test condition on road, it may be 85-90 Km/litre) with 125 CC Engine. The appellant/complainant had alleged that after driving the bike for few days he found that it was not giving more than 60 Km/litre. He reported the matter to respondent/OP. However the problem of less mileage continued. Being aggrieved appellant/OP filed a complaint before the District Forum.
Respondent/OP's contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that after being satisfied by its performance and features, appellant/complainant had purchased the bike. It was alleged that the mileage of the bike was ranging from 109 to 111.3 km/litre only under standard test conditions and not in actual driving conditions. It was further alleged that when the appellant/complainant had brought the bike for servicing it was noticed that he had been extensively using the same and vehicle was running about 50Km per day. It was alleged that the mileage of the bike was dependent upon the quality of petrol, speed of vehicle, road conditions, congestion on the road, expertise of the driver etc. Ld. District Forum after hearing parties and considering the material on record had dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.
It may mention that at the time of hearing no one has appeared on behalf of appellant/complainant. Even on the last date of hearing none appeared for appellant/complainant. Even prior to that adjournment was prayed on behalf of the appellant/complainant.
We have heard counsel for respondent/OP and perused the material on record.
The dispute between the parties is with regard to the average mileage being given by motor cycle model No.XCD-125 bearing Regn. No. DL-4S-BJ-3872 purchased by appellant/complainant. The impugned order has been challenged manly on the ground that the Ld. District Forum had given wrong findings and has not considered the stand of appellant/complainant properly. It is contended that the District Forum has wrongly held that the mileage of the vehicle as advertised and projected by the manufacturer or dealer is in standard test conditions. The other ground of challenge is that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that the respondent/OP is guilty of unfair trade practice.
Ld. Counsel for respondent/OP has argued that a well reasoned order has been passed by the Ld. District Forum after considering the evidence on record. It is stated that there is no legality in the order of the District Forum and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The operative part of order of Ld. District Forum is as under:-
The respondent/OP had also placed on record the report before the District Forum dated 24.03.2007 given by an independent testing agency i.e. A.R.A.I. (Automotive Research Association of India Central Government Institute working under the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprise). In the said report it is stated that in standard conditions the bike Bajaj XCD was giving average of 92 to 123 KMPL on different speeds. The bike in question was purchased in the year 2007 and more than 11 years have also passed. It has also been held in RAM BAHADUR SINGH Vs. ANJITA BAJAJ ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. decided by National Commission RP No. 2845/2009, wherein similar question was involved as in the previous case, as under:-
"The said proclamation might be under the ideal conditions and for the brand new vehicle. In the case in hand, the bike had been driven more than one year and even then it had given an average of more than 88 Kms. Per litre of petrol."
In view of the above discussion, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as is alleged by appellant/complainant.
The Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.
Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information. The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) (sk)