Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                    The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                    2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  On 19/05/2016 the 2^nd opposite party who delivered a Honda Amaze vehicle to the complainant for an amount of Rs.8,62,900/-.  The complainant purchased this vehicle by the assurance of 2^nd opposite party that the said vehicle has got a mileage 18.1km/lr of normal road condition.  According to the complainant the vehicle has only 12 to 14km mileage per ltr which is totally against the assurance given by the opposite parties.  The 3^rd opposite party also promised 18.1 mileage through their brochure.  On 05/11/2016 aggrieved by the violation of assurances the complainant sent registered legal notice to the opposite parties demanding the rectification of the defect of the vehicle or for the refund of the price of the vehicle compensation, cost, etc.  In respect of the above notices the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties sent a reply notice to the complainant stating flimsy reasons.   It is contended that the act of the opposite parties are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to the complainant.  Hence, this case for the refund of the price of the vehicle, compensation, cost, etc, etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. All the opposite parties are received notice, except 3^rd opposite party, all others are entered appearance and filed their version.  The 3^rd opposite party did not appear before this Forum hence we declared ex-parte against 3^rd opposite party on 01/06/2017.  The Joint version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is as follows.  According to the 3^rd opposite party the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact since the complaint herein is not a consumer as defined in Section 2D of C.P.Act 1986.  It is also admitted that the said car is having 90-PS-Power and it is a 1199 CC vehicle.  The ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India) certified mileage of this model is 18.1km/lr. The said ARAI represented the mileage that a car will not give normal conditions.  It is contended that the complainant had booked the car knowing all the details from the brochure and subsequently purchased the car knowing all the above facts.  This opposite parties denied the allegation of ‘improper way of repair’ alleged by the complainant.  It is further contended that opposite parties had arranged a Joint mileage test for the said car with regard to the alleged low mileage.  According to these opposite parties the ARAI certified mileage of the vehicle is 18.1km/lr and the same could not been achieved on normal road or on a normal driving conditions.  It is categorically contended that this opposite parties are not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service against the complainant as alleged.  Therefore this opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 

6. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed following issues for consideration.    

1.  Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
2.  Whether the opposite parties are committed any deficiency

     in service as alleged by the complainant?

3.  Regarding relief and costs?

7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and marked Ext. A1 to Ext. A5. Ext. A1 is the legal notice dated:05/11/2017.  Ext. A2 series are the postal receipts dated: 05/11/2017.  Ext. A3 series are the AD cards dated nil.  Ext. A4 is the cash bill Rs. 8,42,900/- dated: 19/05/2016.  Ext. A5 is the brochure issued by the opposite party.  On the other side DW1 one Vishnu Gopal floor incharge of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and marked Ext. B1. Either the complainant or his counsel failed to cross-examine DW1 before this Forum even though they have given sufficient opportunity for the same.  After the closure of evidence we heard 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.   
8. Point No.1:- The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party in their version seriously contended that the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  When we go into the evidence of this case it is to be noted that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party had not adduced any positive evidence to substantiate there contention with regard to the maintainability of the case.  Therefore we would like to find that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant. 
9. Point No.2&3:- For the sake or convenience we would like to consider point 2 and 3 together.  When we evaluate the evidence of PW1 we can see that the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  In order to substantiate his contention with regard to the issuance of notice he produced and marked the copy of the legal notice along with it postal receipts and acknowledgement as Ext. A1 to Ext. A3.  Ext. A4 is an invoice dated:19/05/2016 issued by 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 8,62,900/- including VAT.   Ext. A5 is a brochure of the said vehicle issued by Honda Company.  The specific contention of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party in this case is that they have not given any kind of assurance with regard to the mileage of the vehicle as contended by the complainant.  It is also pleaded that the mileage of 18.1 per kilometer is approved by ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India) and the said agency is a Co-operative Industrial Research Association of the Auto motive industry related to the Ministry of industries Government of India.  It is to be noted that either the complainant or the opposite parties did not furnish any positive evidence to show that whether the said agency has any control with the ministry of industry as pleaded by the opposite parties.  It is contended that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party was ready and willing to conduct a Joint mileage test with regard to this issue.  We can see that the complainant has not taken any positive steps to file any expert commission report with regard to the low mileage of the vehicle as alleged by the complainant.  If the complainant has any bona-fide in his contention what prevented him to send an expert commissioner to ascertain these fact to convince this Forum.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party examined DW1 in their favour.  According to him the reason for the low mileage is the style of driving, weather condition, fuel quality, road condition etc. etc.  It is also deposed that at the time of service of the vehicle they found a mileage of 15.4km/lr.  This part of chief examination of the DW1 is not challenged by the complainant in cross-examination.  The complainant failed to adduce any conclusive evidence of low mileage as alleged. Considering the above evidence fact and circumstances of this case we would have to find that the complainant is failed to succeeded to prove his case against the opposite parties.  Hence the Point No.2 & 3 found against the complainant.
10. In the result we pass the following orders:

(1). The case is dismissed.

(2). No Order of cost.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st  day of July, 2018.

                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                            P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                  (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)          : (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : Varghese Titus

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Legal notice dated:05/11/2017. 

A2 series : Postal receipts dated: 05/11/2017. 

A3 series : AD cards dated nil. 

A4 : Cash bill Rs. 8,42,900/- dated: 19/05/2016.

A5 : Brochure issued by the opposite party

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 : Vishnu Gopal 

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil      

                                                                                                   (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Varughese Titus,

 S/o the Late M.M. Dathose,

 Thevervelil Mannil House, Chirayirambu PO – 689549.

          (2) Vision Motors Pvt., Ltd.,

               Kuttukkaran Centre,

               Mamangalam, Cochin – 682025.

               Rep. by the General Manager

3. Vision Motors Pvt., Ltd.,

               Kumbazha –Konni Road,

               Thengumkavu, Mallasserry, Pathanamthitta – 691523.

               Rep.by Branch Manager

4. Honda Cars Ltd.,

               Zonal Office West,

               D-126-TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Shiravane, Nerul,

               Thane – Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400706

               Rep. by Zonal Manager.

5. The Stock File.