Fuel efficiency figures derived from standard test conditions and disclosed in product brochures do not constitute an absolute guarantee of real-world performance; in the absence of an inherent manufacturing defect, a variance between these figures and actual driving results does not establish a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed U/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party No.2, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, dated 23.09.2022 in CC 493/2021 where under the opposite party No.2 was directed to reimburse Rs.3,68,000/- that would be required to maintain the subject car with given inferior-fuel efficiency; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenditures. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the above granted reimbursement amount, except costs, shall attract interest @ 8% per annum till its realization.

2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainant and opposite parties.

3. The brief averments of the complaint are that the present complaint is filed against the opposite parties as the vehicle – Honda Amaze S CVT Diesel Car (Reg. No. TS09UD0188) is not giving the promised mileage of 23.8 kms per litre of diesel. During the sale process, the complainant repeatedly asked them about this particular specification to make the purchase decision over the many other options available in the market. The complainant claims that she was assured that the fuel efficiency is 23.8 kmpl. The official brochure also reveals the fuel efficiency as 23.8 kmpl. They were told that the vehicle would need to ply several thousand kms. for the promised efficiency. They waited till the 2nd service and upon enquiry were informed that this vehicle would not give more than 21 kmpl. They called the Honda toll free number to cross check the information and were shocked to find out the fuel efficiency is only 21 kms as against the promised 23.8 kmpl. This purchase of vehicle has brought great financial loss to them and for this visible lack of accountability, the present consumer complaint is instituted seeking justice and equity.

4. a) The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.1 are that the CEO of Honda Cars India Limited has not provided any service assurances or engaged in any communications with the complainant. There is no specific allegation about his role in his individual capacity. The vehicle manufacturer can only be impleaded if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect hence no specific liability is made out in the present case. The complainant seems confused and perplexed as to the specific roles played by the authorized dealer i.e. the opposite party No.2 and the vehicle manufacturer, opposite party No.1.

b) The complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.2, the liability of the CEO of Honda Cars automatically gets negated. One of the main reasons for filing the present consumer complaint is that the complainant has apparently lost out on potential savings of around Rs.3,97,859/- over a period of 15 years if the subject vehicle had conformed to emission standard Bharat Stage IV. Another reason pertains to the hypothetical maintenance of the vehicle. As no manufacturing defect has been highlighted, the case against this opposite party requires to be dismissed.

5. a) The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.2 are that the complainant is well aware about the vehicle purchased by him. The sales team of this opposite party did not promise the complainant that the vehicle will give the stated mileage. The complainant