Case nº Revision Petition No. 3836 Of 2013, (Against the Order dated 04/07/2013 in Appeal No. 114/2012 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) of NCDRC Cases, November 30, 2016 (case 1. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Anr. 2. C.M Associates Vs 1. Kameshwar and Anr. 2. Paramount Motors Pvt. Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Pawan Kr. Ray, Proxy and Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate |
| President | Mr. K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | November 30, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
-
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.7.2013 passed by the H.P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 114/2012 -- Ashoka Leland Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kameshwar & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed.
-
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1-Kameshwar purchased a truck of Ashoka Leyland Comet 1611/3 make from OP-2/Respondent-2 M/s. Paramount Motors Pvt. Ltd., Phase 1, Mohali with a warranty of eighteen months or coverage of one lac fifty thousand kilometres distance, whichever was earlier. After lapse of one month, vehicle started giving trouble. Its temperature would go up. Complainant approached authorized service workshops of Ashoka Leyland Ltd. situated in Bilaspur and Solan districts. M/s. Gautam Automobiles authorized service station changed the coolant, but the problem was not solved and within further one month, coolant was again replaced. Vehicle had covered only a distance of 36000 kilometers when on 4.4.2008, the vehicle carrying a consignment to Chamba broke down and its engine seized. OP No. 2/Petitioner No. 2 C.M. Associates, who is also an authorized repairer of the manufacturer of the vehicle, was approached. A mechanic was deputed by OP No. 2. Vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP No. 2. OP No. 2 demanded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for replacing the engine. Complainant refused to pay the aforesaid amount of money, because according to him the vehicle was still within warranty period. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not file separate reply and OP No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte. OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that the Forum at Solan did not have the jurisdiction as the vehicle was purchased at Mohali and no cause of action was shown to have accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of District Solan. Also it was stated that complainant was not a consumer, as the vehicle had not been purchased by him for self-employment. It was stated that though the allegation was there in the complaint that the vehicle had been purchased for self-employment, yet in the affidavit submitted with the complaint, it was mentioned that the complainant was a businessman. On merits, it was stated that when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No. 2, it was noticed that the thermostat of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial