ALKOTACH POWER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs K.N.GOPALA KRISHNA BHAT

THESE appeals by opposite party No. 2 are directed against the common order recorded by the District Forum, Mangalore in Complaint Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 125 of 92-93 directing both the opposite parties to pay each of the complainant a sum of Rs. 343/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a.

OPPOSITE Party No. 2 is the manufacturer of Jensher 2000 and opposite party No. 1 is its dealer. As in all the complaints the opposite parties were one and the same and the dispute also was one and the same regarding the sale of Jensher 2000 to each of the complainants the District Forum clubbed all the 13 complaints, recorded a common evidence and disposed of all the complaints by a common order.

Each of the complainants purchased Jensher 2000 from opposite party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 333/-; each of them also paid a sum of Rs. 10/- for fitting the said Jensher 2000 to their respective two wheelers. It is the grievance of the complainants that after the said Jensher 1000 was fitted to their "Vehicles there was some improvement in the mileage but subsequently there was gradual reduction in mileage and ultimately the fitting of Jensher 2000 adversely affected the functioning of the engine. So the complainants averred that Jensher 2000 purchased by them was not up to the standard as claimed by the opposite parties and they had basic manufacturing defects. So the complainants sought refund of their said purchase money with interest thereon from the opposite parties.

OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed its version and averred that it had not assured the complainants that Jensher 2000 would increase the mileage but it had only shown the pamphlets published by the manufacturer opposite party No. 2. So it averred that it was not liable for the refund of the said amount to the complainants. Opposite party No. 2 filed its version and averred that the Jensher 2000 ensured better engine performance; that the decrease in mileage in the vehicle fitted with Jensher 2000 could be only due to lack of proper maintenance, conditions of the engine, the adulteration in the fuel, etc., Opposite party No. 2 further averred that Jensher 2000 had the capacity of increasing the mileage up to 22% per liter depending upon the condition of the vehicle and so it averred that the complaint had no merit.

DURING enquiry complainant examined two witnesses and got Exs. C.1 to C.3 marked in evidence. Opposite party No. 2 examined R.W. 1 and got Exs, R.1 to R.4 marked in evidence. Pending enquiry the District Forum referred the Jensher 2000 to the Karnataka Regional Engineering College, Surathkal wherein Dr. B. Samaga, Professor of Mechanical Engineering in Karnataka Regional Engineering College, tested the same and submitted his report as per Ex. C.1. The District Forum on consideration of this material placed on record by the parties, held that the Jensher 2000 had the manufacturing defect and it did not give improvement in mileage as advertised by the opposite parties, and in that view directed both the opposite parties to refund the said sale price with interest thereon to each of the complainant.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

EX. C.1 is the test report of jensher 2000 made by C.W. 1 Dr. B. Samaga. He had specifically stated in his report that Jensher 2000 did not show improvement in mileage as claimed by the manufacturers. The complainant has given the evidence that it did not give any improvement in mileage as advertised and claimed by them. The District Forum assessed the material placed on record by the parties and held that the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practice and managed to sell Jensher 2000 to the complainants. The District Forum on consideration of this material on this aspect of the matter at Para 20 of its order observed thus : "20. Any statement made whether orally or in writing falsely represents that the goods of a particular standard quality, grade, composition, style or model, according to Section 36(a) of MRTP Act, is an ''unfair trade practice''. Since in Ex. R1, it has been stated that using Jensher 2000 Petrol can be saved up to 22% and as on the other hand, the Technical Trail Report at Ex. R.3 clearly discloses that the maximum improvement in Kilometerage by using Jensher 2000 on variable speed test is only 8.05% it can be safely held that by publishing a pamphlet like Ex. C.1 the opposite party No. 2 has by adopting ''unfair trade practice'' managed to sell Jensher 2000 to these complainants. No other conclusion can be arrived at from the materials from the Technical Trial Report at Ex. R.3 relied on by the second opposite party. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to be repaid the prices paid by them along with the charges for fitting of the same."

Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order recorded by the District Forum. There are no grounds to interfere in the findings recorded by the District Forum.

IN the result, therefore, these appeals fail and they are dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear. their own costs in these appeals. Appeals dismissed.