Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case nº Revision Petition No. 1336 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 09/03/2017 in Appeal No. 818/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) of NCDRC Cases, June 08, 2017 (case Baljit Kaur Vs Ms. Divine Motors & Anr.)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Gudipati G. Kashyap, Adv.
PresidentMr. Anup K Thakur,Presiding Member
Resolution DateJune 08, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases

Order:

Anup K. Thakur, J.

This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant -- Baljeet Kaur against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for Short, ''State Commission) dated 9.3.2017 in FA No.818 of 2016 vide which the appeal had been decided in favour of the appellant/opposite party no.1 -- M/s Divine Motors.

Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows.The petitioner/complainant purchased a Scooter - Activa Alfa bearing registration No.PB02CBS7618 on 19.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.49,719/-.It is alleged that on the very second day, the complainant noticed that the vehicle was going in one side, its handle was cracked and its ''chimta'' was also bent. This was brought to the notice of the respondent no.1/opposite party No.1 who did not pay heed and who instead got the signature of the complainant on a paper to say that the scooter was working properly.The petitioner/complainant claims to have made a request for replacement of the vehicle as the same was "absolutely in defective condition" and was "consuming the petrol to the maximum extent".Holding the respondent no.1 responsible for deficiency of service and for selling the defective vehicle, the petitioner claimed the following reliefs from the District Forum:-

That the opposite party be directed to refund the amount of 13192/- (Rs.9000 + 2096 + 2096 two instalments) in all Rs.4192/- alongwith 20% p.a. interest thereon from the date of purchase till the opposite party make the payment.

Opposite party be directed to take back his defective vehicle after paying the amount paid by the complainant as the complainant do not want to retain with him defective vehicle.

Compensation for Rs.20,000/- be also granted to the complainant as the opposite party is used abusive language and insulted the complainant when she visited to their showroom (i.e. by owner Simer and his servant)

Cost of the complaint be also granted.

Respondent no.1 contested the complaint before the District Forum, questioning its maintainability and also on the ground that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd.The respondent no.1 drew attention to the fact that the complainant was a novice in driving the scooter and therefore, suffered accident which resulted in damages beyond warranty.It is further submitted that the complainant came with the vehicle to the respondent no.1...

To continue reading

Request your trial