State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Standard Scooters vs Vijay Kumar Duvey on 3 June, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1996/997 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. M/S Standard Scooters A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Vijay Kumar Duvey A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.997 of 1996 Standard Scooters, Nekpur, Fatehpur. ..... Appellant. Versus 1- Vijay Kumar Dubey s/o Shri L.L. Dubey, R/o Nagla Dina, Fatehgarh, District: Farrukhabad. 2- Shri S.D. Bhatia, Bajaj Sales Engineers Society Motion, Kanpur. 3- Bajaj Auto Limited, Akuradi Pune through its Sales Manager. ...Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member. Sri J.P. Saxena for the appellant. Sri VijaY Kumar Dubey, the respondent himself. Date 6.7.2016 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.7.1996, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Farrukhabad in complaint case No.564 of 1994, the appellant Standard Scooters, Nekpur, Fatehpur has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.
(2)Heard both the parties and have gone through the judgment and evidence on record.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the complaint no.564 of 1994 was filed by Shri Vijay Kumar Dubey, Advocate against the OP no.1 Sales Manager, Bajaj Auto Limited, OP no.2 Standard Scooters, Nekpur, Fatehpur and OP no.3 Shri S.D. Bhatia, Bajaj Sales Engineers Society Motion, Kanpur. The complaint was partly allowed on 4.7.1996 and the OP no.3 Shri S.D. Bhatia, Bajaj Sales Engineers Society Motion, Kanpur was exonerated. The OP no.1 Sales Manager, Bajaj Auto Limited (Manufacturer) and the OP no.2 Standard Scooters, Nekpur, Fatehpur (Authorized Agent) were jointly and severally directed to provide a new scooter in place of the defective one or refund the entire amount of Rs.19,737.00 with interest @ 12% totalling to Rs.26,250.00 only. They were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,500.00 as compensation. It was further ordered that if the payment is not made within 30 days then they be liable to pay interest @ 18%.
Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the OP no.1 Bajaj Auto Limited (Manufacturer) filed Appeal no.1098 of 1996 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.8.2010. Admittedly, this order has achieved finality as no appeal or revision has been preferred against the same.
The OP no.2 Standard Scooters, Nekpur, Fatehpur has preferred the instant appeal in which Bajaj Auto Limited (Manufacturer) and Shri S.D. Bhatia, Bajaj (3) Service Engineer Society were arrayed as proforma respondents. In the backdrop of the above factual position, we now propose to take up the appeal on merit.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Shri Vijay Kumar Dubey, lured by an advertisement given by Bajaj Auto Limited, purchased a Bajaj Super FE Scooter baring Chassis no.08093 G 45091, Engine no.08 E 934995262 from M/s Standard Scooter, Nekpur, Fatehpur who was the authorized dealer of Bajaj Auto Limited. It was advertised by the Bajaj Auto Limited that the "Bajaj Super FE gives mileage 68 Kms to a litre and was having excellent resale value". Lured by this advertisement only, the respondent/ complainant Shri Vijay Kumar Dubey purchased the aforesaid scooter but to his dismay the scooter was giving only an average of 47 Kms to a litre. On objection, the dealer informed that the average will improve after the first service. However, there was no improvement even after all the three free services. This fact was repeatedly brought to the notice of the dealer. As a follow up action, a Service Engineer from Bajaj Auto was appointed to deal with the matter. He checked the scooter and said that the Carburetor required certain replacement of parts. The parts were replaced yet there was no improvement. The Service Engineer again checked the scooter on 28.6.1994 and finally admitted that the scooter would not give an average more than 50 Kms to a litre. He also admitted that the advertisement that the scooter gives 68 Kms to a litre was (4) false and was done to capture the market. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint case no.564 of 1994 was preferred.
Before proceeding further, we would like to quote the advertisement which was given by the respondent Bajaj Auto Limited in the newspaper. It reads as under:
"ऐसे स्कूटर को आप और कहेंगे भी क्या जो हर मोड़ पर आपके पैसे बचाता हो, बजाज स्कूटरों की कीमत देश के दूसरे सभी स्कूटरों से कम है, यानी बजाज स्कूटर खरीदते ही आप पैसे बचाना शुरू कर देते हैं, इनका रख-रखाव है न के बराबर और पेट्रोल खपत बहुत कम बजाज सुपर एफई के 68 के भरपूर माइलेज और चेतक की जबरदस्त रीसेल वैल्यू को भला कौन चैलेंज कर सकता है: देखा जाए तो बजाज स्कूटर एक ऐसा पूंजी निवेश है जिसमें सिर्फ फायदा ही फायदा है, यही कारण है जो बरसों से बजाज स्कूटर लाखों लोगों के मन-पसंद रहे हैं, और मन-पसंद रहेंगे हमेशा '' There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is the registered owner of the scooter and the Service Engineer of the Bajaj Auto Ltd. has admitted that the scooter would never give a mileage of 68 Kms to a litre as claimed by the Company. This advertisement was false and was done by the Company to remain in competition in the market. This factum has not been challenged by the manufacturer or the dealer nor any evidence has been adduced to prove that the scooter would give a mileage as claimed by the Company. The Company took the plea that vehicles are randomly selected for testing under ideal driving condition by an independent Institution known as Automotive Research Association of India and they have (5) various parameters to fix the mileage. The test figure of 68 KMPL was certified by the Automotive Research Association and accordingly, the matter was advertised. The Company, however, has not filed the certificate given by the Automotive Research Association of India. It may be noted here that the ideal test condition includes, the condition of engine, Piston, Fuel Lines, Clogged Air Filter, Dirty Fuel Filter, Contaminated Engine Oil, Heavy Carbon deposits in Engine, Misfiring of Spark Plug, Clogged Fuel Injectors and Ignition Coil, Low Air Pressure, Burn Out Tyres, Mis Aligned Wheels and Bad Driving Habits. Since it was a new scooter therefore, low mileage due to defective auto-parts can be ruled out. No such defect was pointed out by the Service Engineer. The Service Engineer initially informed that the low mileage was due to problems in the Carburetor. He changed the Carburetor in an attempt to improve the mileage; and on his failure to achieve the desired result, admitted that the advertisement given by the Company for remaining in competition in the market. Thus, we find that it is not a case of deficiency in service only but is also a case of unfair trade practice. The advertisement was given for the purpose of promoting sale. The advertisement was deceptive in nature and falsely represented that the scooter was of standard quality, grade, composition and had great resale value and was capable of giving 68 Kms to a litre. The respondent/complainant was lured by this false advertisement and purchased the scooter which was not as per specification advertised. Thus, it is a case of Unfair Trade Practice as well.(6)
It was argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant, being a dealer, can not be held liable for any manufacturing defect in the scooter for which the manufacturer is only liable and in support of the same, a ruling laid down in Abhinandan vs. Ajit Kumar Verma & Ors., I(2008) CPJ 336 (NC), was cited before us. It is true that a dealer can not be held liable for the manufacturing defects but the matter in hand relates to unfair/deceptive trade practice also and therefore, in view of ruling laid down in M/s Wheels World vs. Tejinder Singh Grewal & Anr., 1995(1) CPR 236 (NC), we are of the considered opinion that the Forum below committed no error in law in holding the manufacturers as well as the dealer were jointly and severally responsible for the unfair trade practice. The appeal filed by the manufacturer has been dismissed and the said order has achieved finality. We have gone through the judgment and order carefully. It is based on facts, circumstances and evidence on record. There is no irregularity or illegality in the same and therefore, there is no scope for any interference in it. Consequently, the appeal deserves dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA-I1 Court No.2 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER