|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last year, when I decided to buy a two-wheeler, I looked at the fuel efficiency of various vehicles in the market to chose the one which was most economical, keeping in mind the rising price of petrol. However, the vehicle is not giving the promised mileage and I am very disappointed. I have written several letters to the manufacturer, but without success. What can I do now?
Again in the case of Kinetic Engineering vs Rahul Ray (IV (2006) CPJ 100(NC)) the apex consumer court came down heavily on false claims made through advertisements. Here , on complaints of false representation about the mileage and also some manufacturing defects, the District Forum directed that the cost of the vehicle be refunded along with interest. This was upheld by the National Commission. On the basis of its advertisement announcing ‘50 per cent reduction in prices’, I went to this store to buy some shirts. However, I found that the discount was only on about half a dozen shirts, which were not worth buying. When I accused the shopkeeper of fooling me with his advertisement and wasting my time, he showed me his advertisement, wherein it had said at the bottom of the advertisement in tiny print, "on select goods". Is this not cheating consumers? When a retailer announces a "marked down sale" or a ‘discount,’then it should be available on a ‘reasonable’ quantity of such goods. Or else, it becomes an unfair trade practice. So clearly in this case, the manufacturer is guilty of unfair trade practice. I must also point out that in M.R. Ramesh vs M/S Prakash Moped House and Others, ( RP No 831 of 2001) the National Commission held that advertisements that use fine print to hide crucial information pertaining to products and services, were unacceptable, as they were deceptive. In this case, the manufacturer had qualified his claim about the mileage of the two-wheeler by putting an asterisk and stating at the bottom of the advertisement in tiny print: "Under standard conditions". The National Commission directed the manufacturer not to make such a claim in future without stating clearly, intelligibly and "in the same type of letters", the basis for the claim. It awarded the consumer, Rs 25,000 as compensation
|
||
|
|
||
Making a false claim or
a promise in respect of the quality or performance of a product, or as
in this case, the fuel efficiency of a vehicle, constitutes an
"unfair trade practice" under the Consumer Protection Act.
Consumers who suffer loss on account of such unfair trade practice can
seek the intervention of the consumer court. I suggest that you write
to the manufacturer, pointing this out, along with two cases that I
mention below. If he still fails to respond, lodge a complaint with
the consumer court. However, remember to enclose in your complaint,
the advertisements and brochures of the manufacturer, wherein he is
making the exaggerated claims.
In Bajaj Auto Ltd vs
Pankaj Kumar (IV 2006 CPJ 267 NC) , the advertisement had claimed that
the motorcycle gave a mileage of 87 KMPL, but when the complainant
bought it in 2001 on the basis of the claim , he found that it gave
only 65 KMPL. Here, the District Forum dismissed the argument of the
manufacturer that the mileage claim was always based on ideal
conditions and held that the manufacturer was guilty of unfair trade
practice for having misled the consumer about the mileage through his
advertisement. It directed that the advertisement be stopped forthwith
and gave the consumer, a compensation of Rs 10,000 and costs of Rs
1000. This was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission.