IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM,PHULBANI.
C.C.No. 03/2007
Present :Shri Ashok Kumar Behera,President.
Smt. Nirupama Panda,Member.
Shri Adikanda Pradhan,Member.
Sri Santanu Kumar Mishra,
S/o Sri Lokanath Mishra,
of :Amalapada,P.O.Phulbani,
Dist.Kandhamal. ……………………….Complainant.
VS
1.Himansu Automobiles,
Main Road,Phulbani,
Dist.Kandhamal.
2.Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Akurdi,Pune-411035,
Maharastra. ………………………..Opposite Parties.
For the Complainant:Sri B.D.Mohapatra,Advocate.
For the OppositeParties:
Date Of Order:30.11.09
ORDER
The Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties.That on 07.10.2006 the Complainant purchased a Bajaj Platina motor bike from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.34,600.00.The Opposite Party No.2 who is the manufacturer of the bike has announced through an advertisement in the daily newpaper ‘ Dharitri’ dated 23.08.2006 that the bike Bajaj Platina will give a mileage of 108 K.M Per Litre under standard test.The Complainant being attracted with the advertisement purchased the above bike.Soon after purchase the Complainant observed that the bike gave a mileage of 65 KMPL instead of 108 KMPL.So the Complainant complained before the Opposite Party No.1 who told that the bike will give the proper mileage after first service.But after first service the mileage
was reduced to 60 KMPL and was further reduced to 50 KMPL.The complainant has submitted that by issuing the advertisement that the bike will give a mileage of 108 KMPL the Opposite Parties have cheated the complainant.The Opposite Party No.1 has failed to render any service to the complainant and refused to change the defective bike or refund the price of the bike.Due to above acts of the Opposite Parties the complainant sustained mental agony,financial loss and harassment. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties praying for directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.88,770.00 which includes Rs.34,600.00 the cost of the bike.The complainant has submitted that the Opposite Parties have made negligence in rendering services so they are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.
The Opposite Parties have appeared and filed their counter before this forum.In their counter the Opposite Parties have submitted that the complainant has made allegation relating to mileage of the vehicle i.e.108 KMPL.As per the advertisement which is not at all conclusive to obtain by the rider without following the proper instructions of the company during course of riding of the vehicle.There are number of instructions to be followed up by the rider of the vehicle which are being provided by the company in shape of a booklet received by the complainant admitted by which is conclusive guideline and instructions stipulated therein.There are large number of customers like the complainant who are quite satisfied with the performance of the Bajaj vehicles being manufactured by the Opposite Parties company.The company have also arranged number of technical experts to rectify and to render proper services to their customers in this regard.The Opposite Parties have submitted that there is no such allegations available with the Opposite Parties relating to diminishing of mileage of the alleged vehicle prior to initiation of this complaint.There is also no records available relating to observation of proper insruction of the company by the complainant.The Opposite Parties have also submitted that the complainant is not at all a technical expert to say that the vehicle is giving less mileage at the time of riding.The Opposite
Parties have submitted that, the fuel average achievable in any vehicle for that matter depends on various factors on which the Opposite Parties do not have any control i.e. The number of starts and stops to the vehicle,the load carried on the vehicle,the road conditions,the wheel pressures,the purity of the fuel,the maintainance of the vehicle,the driving habits of the rider.These factors do have its own impact on the mileage achieved from any vehicle.The OppositeParties have submitted that the complainant have availed service facility of the company as per company norms and the performance of the vehicle was quite satisfactory right from its sale and the Opposite Parties are always available and to render services at any moment to any sort of defects in the vehicle and abide by the terms and conditions stipulated in the booklet.The Opposite Parties have submitted that since the allegation is completely false the same is not tenable under law therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in this complaint.There is no such deficiency of services on behalf of the present Opposite Parties so the complaint is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected with compensatory cost.
Perused the complaint petition,counter and documents filed by the parties.Perused the advertisement dated 23.08.2006 which states that the vehicle will give mileage of 108 KMPL under standard test conditions.The Petroleum Conservation Research Association has stated that the fuel consumption of a vehicle depends on how it is driven and on condition of the vehicle and proper driving technique is very important for achieving fuel economy and there could be a 30% variation in fuel consumption because of road and weather conditions.The complainant has not submitted any expert opinion from a technical expert that the vehicle was giving a mileage of 50 KMPL.So in the absence of any expert opinion, the complainant has failed to prove his dispute.Under the above circumstances the complaint is devoid of any merit hence the dispute is dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT