Case nº Revision Petition No. 4076 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 02/08/2010 in Appeal No. 955/2000 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of NCDRC Cases, June 10, 2016 (case 1. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Anr. 2. Rajesh Motors Pvt. Limited Vs 1. Subhash Chand (Deceased) and Anr 2. Harjeet 3. Pankaj 4. Kapil)
| Judge | For Appellant: For Ashok Leyland Ltd. : Mr. Dileep Pookakkot, Advocate and For Rajesh Motors Pvt. Ltd. : Mr. Anshuman Ashok, Advocateand For Respondents: Mr. Govind Narayan, Advocate and In person |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member |
| Resolution Date | June 10, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
-
Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to the order, dated 02.08.2010, in First Appeal No.955 of 2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Rajasthan (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum with respect to deficiency of service on behalf of the manufacturer and the dealer in not rectifying the defects and returning the vehicle to the Complainants.
-
The facts briefly put are that the Complainants had purchased Ashok Leyland Company''s Truck Model "Taurus" vide bill no.F-Bees-308, dated 07.03.1995. They found certain technical and manufacturing defects in the vehicle which were informed to the dealer several times, but not rectified. It is pleaded that the relevant parts were not available with the dealer; the clutch plates, springs, suspension system etc. were not in accordance with the original parts and had been forcibly fitted leading to improper functioning of the vehicle. It is averred that the rear suspension system, rod and lever chassis frame, etc. were defective which had led to frequent break downs and towing of the truck to the workshop.
-
On 23.07.1997 and on 01.09.1997, an inspection was carried out by an Engineer appointed by the dealer, M/s Rajesh Motors and an assurance was given on 22.08.1997 that all the defects would be removed and the vehicle would be handed over to the Complainants in a road worthy condition. The Complainants pleaded that letters were written on 13.08.1997, 22.09.1997, 23.12.1997 and a legal notice was also issued on 12.01.1999 but the vehicle was not returned to the Complainants. On 17.10.1997, it was agreed by the Opposite Parties that the parts would be replaced free of cost, but they did not adhere to the agreed terms. They pleaded that the vehicle was with the dealer in a defunct condition on account of which they had suffered loss of monthly income of `25,000/- and could not pay the installments on time to the Finance Company, resulting in compounded interest and other expenses. Hence, they preferred a Complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to remove the manufacturing defects, pay the monthly loss of `25,000/-, the installments with interest, compensation and costs.
-
The first Opposite Party, i.e. the manufacturer, Ashok Leyland Limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial