Case nº Revision Petition No. 789/ 904 Of 2008, (Against the Order dated 16/11/2007 in Appeal No. 715/2007 of the State Commission Chandigarh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 30, 2012 (case 1. Berkeley Automobiles 2. Amar Singh And Another 3. Ashok Leyland Vs 1. Amar Singh And Another 2. Ashok Leyland 3. Berkeley Automobiles)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. S.S. Bawa, Advocate and Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate
PresidentMr. R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and Mr. S.K. Naik, Member
Resolution DateAugust 30, 2012
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

  1. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. 715 / 2007, M/s. Berkeley Automobiles has filed petition, i.e., RP No. 789 / 2008 and aggrieved by another order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the same Commission in appeal no. 746 / 2007, M/s. Ashok Leyland (OP in the complaint) has filed RP No. 904 / 2008. Since the appeals by the petitioners were filed against the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the District Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh in the complaint case no. 47 / 2005, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to decide both the revision petitions by means of this common order.

  2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the complaint have been amply noted in the order of the District Forum and need no repetition at our end. Complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP / petitioner herein in regard to sale of a Ashok Leyland Chassis to the complainant which in as much as according to the complainant the opposite party charged the prices / of a new chassis and supplied an old and used chassis as new chassis as a result of which loss and injury was caused to the complainant. The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer on the ground that it was not concerned with the transaction of the sale of the chassis in question in as much as the dealer had sold the old chassis after the same was repossessed from a certain person. The dealer, however, came out with a specific plea that the chassis sold to petitioner was not a new chassis and in fact was an old one but it was sold at a much lesser price with his consent and full knowledge of the complainant and, therefore, they have not adopted any unfair trade practice. The District Forum after the trial and the material produced on record, however, partly allowed the complaint and gave the following directions:- n view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- charged extra for the vehicle and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. The amount shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, they would be liable to pay back this amount alongwith interest @9% per annum since the date they received the amount, i.e., 25.06.2004 till...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT