1. M/s. L.M.L. Limited has come up in appeal against the order dated 16.4.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Faridabad, whereby the complaint of Satya Prakash Sharma, Advocate, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant has been allowed by directing the appellant to replace the scooter with a new one or to refund an amount of Rs. 21,650 / - with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. ACCORDING to the complainant, he had purchased 1992 Model LML Vespa Scooter from M/s. Super Auto Mobiles, Faridabad, for an amount of Rs. 21,650/- on 21.12.1992. When the complainant found that the scooter was not giving the average mileage of 65 kms. per litre as had been represented and given out by the manufacturers, he approached the District Consumer Forum on 5.10.1993 claiming an amount of Rs. 99,000/- as compensation. In their reply, the appellants pleaded that no doubt the complainant had brought to their notice some defects in the scooter supplied by them but the same had been removed. Despite this, the complainant refused to acknowledge the performance of the scooter. After examining the evidence produced by the parties, the learned District Consumer Forum, Faridabad, came to the conclusion that: "Therefore, the publicity given by opposite party that their product was world fame and would give the average of 65 kms. was devised only to attract customers and on that account this Forum feels that opposite party had definitely been indulging in unfair trade practice."
In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the manufacturers and the dealer has vehemently contended that whatever defects had been detected by inspection of the vehicle time and again by the Engineers of the appellants, the same had been removed promptly. Hence, there was hardly any ground left for accepting the complaint.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and having gone through the record, we are not impressed by his contention. The mere fact that soon after the purchase of the vehicle, it had to be brought to the workshop of the appellants, who certainly removed certain defects, is indicative of the fact that there was some manufacturing defect due to which the average mileage was not being achieved. In any case, even if the average mileage got improved after the necessary removal of certain defects, it did not come to the publicised figure as represented by the manufacturers. Under these circumstances, the learned District Consumer Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the vehicle needed replacement. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same by upholding the direction issued by the learned District Forum for replacing the vehicle with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.21,650/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, before parting with this case, we had found that the allegation of deficiency in service and defect in goods were themselves enough to sustain the aforesaid direction and there was hardly any necessity to give a finding regarding the involvement of the manufacturers in an unfair trade practice. Consequently, the following observations made by the learned District Consumer Forum being unnecessary shall stand deleted from the impugned order : "Therefore, the publicity given by opposite party that their product was world fame and would give the average of 65 kms. was devised only to attract customers and on that account this Forum feels that opposite party had definitely been indulging in unfair trade practice." Appeal dismissed.
