KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD Vs. MILIND S CHAURASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we intend to dispose of both the above titled Revision Petitions as both arise out of the order dated 4th August, 1993 by which the appeal filed by the Complainant (now Respondent in these Revision Petitions) against M/s. Ajahtha Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 579 of 1993) and M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. (Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 511 of) was allowed.

(2.) THE Complainant, had filed a complaint the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur. According to his allegation he had purchased a Luna-TFR Plus from M/s. Ajantha Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter d to as Dealer) on 14.8.90, who were the authorised Dealers of M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Manufacturer), who are the Manufacturers of the said make of Luna. He alleged that right from the ting the vehicle had a poor pick up and high petrol consumption and that it gave only 40 km. per litre as against 60 km. as advertised by the Opposite Parties. The Dealer carried out four services from time to time and the repairs arrived out but every time the fault per-After every free servicing the Dealer d him that the vehicle would run well and give proper mileage per litre but to no effect. After the fourth free servicing in July, 1991 the average mileage given by the vehicle was 35 to 40km. per litre and the Dealer also charged Rs. 530.80Ps. from him for the replacement of some parts. According to the Complainant, the defect has not been rectified and therefore, the Opposite Parties were asked to replace the defective vehicle with a new one immediately. He also for the refund of Rs. 530.80 Ps. paid on 23rdJuly, 1991 plus Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for higher consumption of petrol and mental torture.

(3.) THE Manufacturers filed their counter alleging that the fuel consumption of the vehicle depends on various conditions such as maintenance of vehicle, manner of driving, road condition etc. and the conditions normally experienced in actual use on roads and are far off from the ideal conditions envisaged for 60 kmpl. performance of the vehicle. That every time the complainant brought his vehicle for a 'free service", the vehicle was thoroughly checked and during the first three free servicings certain parts had to be changed but that was done as goodwill and not because there was any manufacturing defect. At the time of the fourth servicing it was noticed that there was no oil in the gearbox whereas in the Operation and Maintenance Manual, the use of oil is insisted as per recommendation. After every servicing the complainant took the vehicle for trial and he was fully satisfied. They state that a fuel consumption test was carried out in the presence of the complainant on 1st July, 1991 and that showed 6.5 km. per 100 ml. which mean 65 km. per litre. On 23rd July, 1991 when the complainant had approached them, there was no oil in the gear box and this resulted in the failing of components due to negligence are not covered under warranty and hence when the parts were changed the complainant was charged for the same. It was further alleged that the complainant was using the vehicle without proper care and attention.