Gyanendra Kumar vs Kinetic Hondo Motor Company
1992 Latest Caselaw 312 Del

JUDGMENT

Balakrishna Eradi, J.

(1) The appellant was not present either in person or through any authorised representative at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing. However, the appellant had sent a written representation addressed to the Registry forwarding notes of his arguments and stating that on account of financial difficulty, it would not be possible for him to appear personally or to engage an Advocate at the time of hearing of the case.

(2) We have accordingly given our careful consideration to the points raised in the written notes submitted by the appellant.

(3) The appeal arises out of the order dated July 1,1991 passed by the State Commission, Orissa disposing of the appellant's Complaint Petition C.D.No.87 of 1990 by issuing certain directions to the Opposite partices,. The complainant (appellant) had purchased a Kinetic Honda Scooter manufactured by the first respondent company. The grievance with which the appellant approached the State Commission was that in the brochure published by the company they had represented that the fuel efficiency of the vehicle was such as to give 48.8 kilometers per litre of Petrol under ordinary Indian conditions and that it gone in for the purchase of the Scooter in question. According to the complainant his Scooter was not having the fuel efficiency mentioned in the company's brochure and even after repairs were got effected by the service engineer of the manufacturer, the fuel consumption rate of his Scooter was only 25- 30 kms. per litre within the city and 35-38 kms. per litre in long stretches of free road. On the basis of these allegations the appellant prayed for the reliefs of replacement of his Scooter by a new vehicle having the fuel efficiency as mentioned in the brochure and also the award of adequate compensation for the inconvenience and loss caused to him.

(4) The State Commission, after considering the materializes placed before it, found that there was substance in the allegations of the complainant that the fuel efficiency of the vehicle supplied to the complainant was considerably less than what had been claimed in the brochure. However, since the complainant had been continuously using the vehicle from the date of its purchase namely, April 6,1990. the State Commission was of opinion that the prayer for replacement of the Scooter with a new one could not be justifiably be granted. It therefore, issued the directions: "Therefore we direct that on the complainant delivering the scooter to the dealer (Opp. Party No.2) from whom he purchased within fifteen days of receipt of this order, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 shall attend to it within two months and deliver back to the complainant with fuel consumption at the rate of 40/45 Kpl in the minimum in normal city drive in Cuttack town. After repair, complainant shall be invited to attend the test and shall be a pillion rider of the technical person who would drive. One litre of petrol shall be poured in the empty fuel tank and vehicle will be driven in cuttack city for 20 Kms. If the vehicle reaches the point of start. it shall be handed over to the complainant. It case fuel does not become sufficient for the 40 K.M. drive in Cuttack city, manufacturer shall take back the scooter and pay back the price paid by the complainant.

(5) In case of any difference between the drive of opposite party Nos. I and 2 and complainant, a third person agreeable to both parties shall be given, to drive the scooter and his result shall be final for the purpose of complying with the aforesaid direction. For delay beyond two months in having the test for delivery, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per day of delay till final test is made." After having considered the matter in all its aspects, we are of opinion that the directions issued by the State Commission are adequate to safeguard the rights and interests of the complainant and the grant of any further relief is not called for.

(6) We accordingly confirm the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs.