FIAT INDIA PVT LIMITED Vs. S K VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -COMPLAINANT S. K. Verma had purchased a Palio car from M/s. Vivek Automobiles, New Delhi on 14. 3. 2003. The complainant alleged that M/s. FIAT India had claimed that Palio car will give an average fuel consumption of 13 to 15 kilometres per litre (kmpl) with A/c and 15 to 18 KMPL without A/c. The complainant was extremely unhappy with the kilometrage right from the beginning as the car was giving only 10 kmpl with A/c. This was brought to the notice of the dealer of the time of free service and subsequently on several occasions from 25. 5. 2002. He made further written representations to opposite party No. 1 i. e. , FIAT India Pvt. Ltd. on 4. 3. 2003, 12. 4. 2003 and 7. 5. 2003. As he did not get any positive response he filed a complaint claiming replacement of a car or refund of the cost of the car with the compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony. This was contested by the opposite parties stating that fuel average is solely dependent upon various umpteen operational facts such as driving habits, fuel used, road conditions, maintenance of car, etc. and no manufacturer in the world can guarantee a specific fuel consumption.

(2.) VARIOUS job cards also indicate about the complaint made of low average. Joint road kilometrage test was conducted on 1. 4. 2004 during which the car was driven for 207 km which gave an average of 11. 3 kmpl. The complainant alleged that this average is less than 20 km as per the printed material of the opposite party and 14. 4 km as claimed by the company in an advertisement in a newspaper. The District Forum after hearing the parties on going through the records of the case directed for replacing the old car with a new one of the same model with fresh warranty along with Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as costs.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties FIAT India and Vivek Automobiles filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission heard the parties and passed detailed judgment partly allowing the appeal by directing the manufacturer to refund the cost of the car as the ultimate liability rests on the manufacturer. However, no interest was awarded maintaining the rest of the order.