M. PREMALATHA Vs. ARIVALAGAN PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petition no. 3998 of 2011 has been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in Appeal no. 646 of 2007.

(2.) The brief facts of the complaint as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner/ complainant is the wife of K S Manickam, who has retired from his service. Since the petitioner's husband has also retired, the petitioner and husband wanted to start a motor business, wherefrom they eke their life in the remaining period. The petitioner tried to purchase a Tempo Van and from out of its income they proposed to eke their life. The petitioner searched various makes of Tempo. Since the petitioner made enquiry with the 2nd respondent/ 2nd opposite party, the 2nd respondent advised the petitioner that Eicher Vehicle 11.10.G HSD Super Long RHD 1C GB (Turbo inter cooler) was the best vehicle and also advised that with the recommended laden condition the vehicle will give the mileage of 8 to 9 k m per litre. On hearing this petitioner purchased the vehicle Eicher 11.10 Turbo Inter Cooler bearing Engine no. E 483T30690168 and Chasis no. 20GC30602742 bearing registration no. KA 05 AC 7277 on 27.08.2003.

(3.) The petitioner plied the vehicle and did periodical service with the 1st respondent/ 1st opposite party, who is the authorised service dealer of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner faced a problem that the mileage of her vehicle was only 5 k m per litre, the petitioner complaint repeatedly with the 1st respondent. They did not believe her. After two services the 1st respondent asked the petitioner to service the same with the 2nd respondent. Hence, the petitioner took the vehicle to 2nd respondent for servicing the same and rectify the defects. The 2nd respondent had checked up the Fuel Rotary Pump and affixed the same and asked the petitioner that the mileage will be improved. But the petitioner faced the same problem and on 31.01.2003 the petitioner's vehicle broke down due to ceasing of engine, at Thoppur. Immediately the vehicle was sent to the 2nd respondent for rectification. The 2nd respondent did the recondition of the new engine and changed the Fuel Rotary Pump. After four months the petitioner faced the same problem of poor mileage and poor pick up and always the engine turned switch off. The petitioner complained of the same to the 2nd respondent for which the 2nd respondent dragged the matter for four months saying that the spares have to come from Chennai and after four months the 2nd respondent fixed the fuel pump of the petitioner's vehicle itself on 13.05.2004.