National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Sadanand Bhojraj Adyanthaya vs Chairman, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & 4 ... on 7 September, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 11/11/2014 in Appeal No. 105/2013 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. DR. SADANAND BHOJRAJ ADYANTHAYA C/3, ASHOKA SOCIETY, NAYLOR ROAD KOREGAON PARK PUNE - 411001 MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHAIRMAN, MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. & 4 ORS. (HEAD OFFICE) NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI 110070 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO MARUTHI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (HEAD OFFICE) NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI 110070 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & DIRECTOR SAI SERVICE STATION LTD. J.M. ROAD DECCAN GYMKHANA, PUNE 411004. MAHARASHTRA 4. THE MANAGER, SAI SERVICE STATION LTD. J.M ROAD DECCAN GYMKHANA. PUNE - 411004. MAHARASHTRA 5. THE MANAGER, MARUTHI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (REGIONAL OFFICE WEST II) 7TH FLOOR MORTH BLOCK WORLD WANOWRITE, PUNE - 411040 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Chhiber and Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Advocates For the Respondent :
Dated : 07 Sep 2015 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The petitioner/complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Ritz Car manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on 28.07.2009. The case of the complainant is that he had come across an advertisement in newspaper declaring that the car gives an average of 17.7 kms per liter in petrol. The car was purchased from the dealer of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. namely Sai Service Station Ltd. Alleging that the average given by the car was about 10-11 kms per liter, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking repayment of the price paid by him for purchasing the car along with compensation and costs etc., all quantified at Rs. 16,82,432/-.
2. The complaint was filed against the Chairman and Managing Director & CEO of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. along with the Managing Director and Manager of Sai Service Station Ltd. who were impleaded as the opposite parties. Neither Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. nor Sai Service Station Ltd. both of which are the companies under registered the Companies Act was impleaded as a party to the complaint. The OP No.1, 2 & 5 i.e. Chairman, Managing Director & CEO and Manager of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. filed their written version, claiming therein that there was no deficiency in service rendered to the complainant and the company had not authenticated the average given by the vehicle, since it depends on number of factors including driving habits and driving conditions. It was also stated in the reply that in a test carried out on 06.03.2010, the vehicle had given average of 18 kms per liter.
3. Vide its order dated 10.04.2013, the District Forum directed the respondents to pay a sum Rs.90,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. filed an appeal before the concerned State Commission. Since the complainant was also not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded to him, he also filed a separate appeal challenging the order of the District Forum.
5. The State Commission vide its order dated 11.11.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant while allowing the appeal filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.
6. The petitioner has placed before us a copy of the pamphlet alleged to have been given to him. However, no copy of any newspaper advertisement has been placed on record. Copy of the pamphlet filed by the petitioner/complainant is illegible. An astrix has been put against the figure 17.7 in the aforesaid pamphlet and it is not clear from the pamphlet as to by whom it was issued. There is nothing on the pamphlet to incorporate that it was issued by the manufacturer-Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. The State Commission in this regard noted that the pamphlet had not been printed by the manufacturer and it had rubber stamp of the dealer affixed on it. In case, the above referred pamphlet was issued by the dealer of the car and by not manufacturer, obviously Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. cannot be held responsible for the statement made in the said pamphlet.
7. A similar issue came up for consideration of this Commission in Revision Petition No.3666-3667 of 2014 (Em Pee Motors Ltd. vs. Ramesh Kumar Bamal & Anr.), Revision Petition No.3925 of 2014 (M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ramesh Kumar Bamal) and Revision Petition No.3980-3981 of 2014 (Ramesh Kumar Bamal vs. M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) decided on 16.01.2015 and the following view was taken:-
"In our opinion, if the manufacturer of a vehicle claims a particular mileage based upon the result of a test conducted by a third party such as ARAI which is a body under the aegis of the Government of India, it cannot be said to have published false information or made a false representation with respect to the fuel economy of the vehicle. The very use of the word "falsely" in clause I of Section 2(r)(1) of the act clearly indicates that the representation which is impugned before a consumer forum should be false to the knowledge of the person by whom it is made. If a person bonafidely believes upon the report submitted by a third party such as ARAI and represents accordingly to the members of the public, it cannot be accused of having made a false representation.
The mileage given by a vehicle is the result of a number of factors including (a) the road on which the vehicle is driven, (b) the traffic on the road at the time it is driven, (c) the quality of the fuel used in the vehicle, (d) the speed at which the vehicle is driven, (e) the number of times brake is applied to stop the vehicle, (f) load carried in the vehicle, (g) air pressure in the tyres/tubes, (h) condition of the tyres and (i) the overall condition of the vehicle, etc. Therefore, a vehicle which gives a particular mileage under standard test conditions will never be able to deliver the same mileage when it is driven on a city road and that too, under conditions different from the conditions under which it was test driven."
8. In the present case also, it has been clearly stated in the reply filed by respondents no.1, 2 & 5 before the District Forum that average of the vehicle is certified as per ARAI certification required under Section 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules/Act and average given by a vehicle depends on several factors such as driving habits which having person to person and the driving conditions. Since the vehicle in question was driven by the complainant on city road highway and not on a testing track, the average which the car was able to achieve on the testing track could not have been achieved. Moreover, the person who drive the vehicle on a testing track is a trained person who knows how much should be the speed at a particular point on the track, which gear is to be used at what speed and when the break if necessary is to be applied. Those ideal testing conditions are not available on a city road or even on a highway. There was no claim by the manufacturer that car gives average of 17.7 kms per liter of petrol on a city road or on a highway. Therefore, there was no false assurance given to the complainant.
9. For the reason stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. Consequently, the revision petition as well as accompanying application for condonation of delay are dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER