IMPORTANT POINT
Intending Purchasers - It may not be a false statement but certainly it is an unfair statement and the purpose of such unfair statement is to deceive the intending purchaser by falsely made them to believe that car would give such a huge mileage when the expected testing conditions are not at all available to any intending purchasers.

ORDER (COMMON)

S. Karuppiah, Judicial Member—All the three appeals in F.A.No.136/2019, F.A.No.52/2018 & F.A.No.52/2 have been preferred against the order made in C.C.No.81/2013, dated 05.10.2015 on the file of the District Commission, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.

2. As the three appeals are arising out of one and the same order of the learned District Commission, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil made in C.C.No.81/2013, dated 05.10.2015, these appeals are jointly heard and disposed of by this Common Order.

3. For brevity and clarity of the Judgement the parties are referred as per their rank in the consumer complaint.

4. The case of the complaint is as follows;—

The complainant is an Advocate, the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and the opposite parties 2 to 4 are the authorized dealers for Ford Fiesta Car. The complainant booked a Ford Fiesta Classic Car on 26.09.2012 and took delivery on 05.10.2012 from the opposite parties. The opposite parties in their Advertisement High Lighted that the car would give 32.38 KMS/Litre diesel. But, the car did not give such mileage and gave only 17 & 18 KMS/Litre. It was informed to the opposite parties’ service station but it was not rectified and the assured mileage of 32.38 KMS/Litre cannot be achieved by the car purchased by the complainant. Hence, alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency in service the complaint is lodged by claiming Rs.10,45,803/- towards purchase price and compensation for mental agony with cost of the proceedings.

5. The 1st opposite party filed a separate written version, and the opposite parties 2 to 4 filed independent separate written version in which they contended that as per the complaint there is no allegations of manufacturing defect in the car sold to the complainant. The efficiency of a car and the mileage of the car entirely dependent upon various factors such us driving skill, vehicle load, traffic conditions, road conditions, fuel quality etc., Moreover, they specifically did not give any warranty for such mileage as expected by the complainant. The complainant was at liberty to have a free ride before purchasing the vehicle. The fact of giving 32.38KMS/Litre in the advertisement was based upon “Auto car cross country drive” result. Hence, there is no misrepresentation or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. Both sides let their oral evidence and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2, the District Commission passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to replace the Engine in the Ford Fiesta Car of the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, and to pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.

7. Aggrieved by the above order, F.A.No.52/2018 is filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4, F.A.No.52/2019 is filed by the 1st opposite party and F.A.No.136/2019 is filed by the complainant. In all the appeals they contended that the order of the District Commission was erroneous and liable to be set aside. Particularly, the opposite parties in their appeal contended that the District Commission failed to note that there was no manufacturing defect and it was not the case of the complainant. Moreover, they further alleged that there was no misrepresentation made by them in the advertisements and the advertisement is simply reflected the test result of Autocar a Private Agency.

8. The complainant in his appeal contended that the District Commission erroneously found the applicability of the Judgements in 2014 (2) CPR 227 (NC) Muktaji Vishnuji Chemate –Vs- Escorts Limited. The replacement is not the proper relief when the complainant claimed Rs.10,45,803/- compensation cum refund of the sale price.

9. We perused the written arguments submitted by all the parties. It is to be admitted that, the complainant’s entire version was based upon the advertisements made by the opposite parties in some of the leading dailies that their F