2.	Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that OP No. 1 is the manufacturer of Hero Honda. OP No. 2 is the dealer-cum-authorised agent of OP No. 1. The Complainant had purchased Hero Honda CD Deluxe motorcycle on 25.1.2006 from OP No. 2 paying a cost of Rs. 32,899. OP No. 1/2 gave an advertisement that the abovesaid motor vehicle gives highest mileage of 80 kms per litre. Believing the said advertisement, the Complainant had purchased the said vehicle but on usage, the vehicle was giving mileage of 40 kms per litre only. Even after two services, there was no improvement. Mileage testing was done on 9.3.2006, 10.4.2006, 20.4.2006 and 25.5.2006; even then, mileage was 40 kms per litre. The shortfall was due to manufacturing defect. The Complainant had requested the Opposite Parties either to exchange the vehicle or refund the cost thereof. In spite of legal notice, they failed to comply with it. Thus, the Complainant was put to mental agony and financial loss.
3.	The version filed by OP No. 2 was adopted by OP No. 1 in which there is an admission of sale of the vehicle and the rest of the allegations are denied stating that no such advertisement was given assuring mileage as alleged, more so in respect of manufacturing defect as alleged. It is stated that mileage depends upon the driving and maintenance of it by the rider.
4.	During inquiry, the Complainant along with affidavit filed Exs. A1 to A5 documents, which were marked. Similarly, OP No. 2 along with his affidavit has filed Exs.B1 to B4, which were marked.
5.	After going through the evidence and respective contentions, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is no hesitation to accept that the mileage of the four-stroke two-wheeler should be 80 kms per litre for the reason that the mileage of four-stroke engine is always different for the mileage given for the two-stroke two-wheeler vehicle. The District Forum concluded that since the new vehicle failed to give mileage of 80 kms per litre, it was definitely a manufacturing defect, and thereby, passed the order in favour of the Complainant. Point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable and whether the Complainant had proved that the vehicle in question has any manufacturing defects for entitlement of the relief prayed for?
6.	At the outset, it can be said that the Complainant has not produced any expert's opinion by getting the two-wheeler vehicle tested to establish that the mileage of the vehicle was only 40 kms per litre instead of 80 kms, as assured or advertised by the opposite parties in their brochure. Ex. A1 is the advertised pamphlet in respect of the vehicle in question, in fact, there is no mention about the expected mileage of the vehicle except noting down the specifications of the engine and its various accessories. It is not known on what basis it is claimed that the vehicle in question would give a mileage of 80 kms per litre. If the seller or manufacturer adopts unfair trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or in respect of its services, such methods would fall within the definition of unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the CP Act. It is an undisputed fact that the OP No. 1 has not stated what is the standard mileage of the vehicle per litre. This fact is also emphasised in para 6 of the impugned order. It is also observed that the OPs 1 and 2 did not actually test the mileage and the Complainant was repeatedly complaining that the vehicle was giving low mileage and thereby, concluded that when the two-wheeler in question is a four-stroke engine, it should give 80 kms g per litre and that the four-stroke engine is always different from the mileage given by a two-stroke two-wheeler vehicle. On this proposition, there is no technical evidence at all and it is not known on what basis this conclusion was arrived at. We have perused 9. Ex. B4 in which it is noted that for 100 ml on road test the mileage would be 7.2 kms; for one litre the expected mileage is 72 kms. From these details, nothing could be inferred that there was an assurance that the mileage would be 72 kms per litre and a test drive was made which was proved to be wrong.
7.	The OP No. 1 in its affidavit in para 5 has categorically refuted the allegations of the Complainant. It is also made clear that on 5.5.2006, the vehicle was tested by filling petrol and it was found that the vehicle gave 72 kms per litre. This allegation is not at all refuted. Based on the insufficient details in Ex. B4, it cannot be said that the OPs had not tested the vehicle to know its mileage. When the Complainant alleges that due to inherent manufacturing defect, there is a deficiency in fuel efficiency of 80 kms per litre, it is for him to prove and establish by producing the technical expert evidence. When the OP No. 1 had not given any assurance or asserted that the two-wheeler in question would give a mileage of 80 kms; when the mileage is only 40 kms per litre, it cannot be said that OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 are responsible for it. They cannot be attributed with deficiency in service, as alleged.
8.	Thus, on an overall consideration of the factual aspects and evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside.
9.	In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 1.5.2007 passed by the District Forum in CC No. 415/2006 as not sustainable. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. But there is no order as to costs.