Original Case No. 13 of 1992. Case: Dr. K.C. Barolia Vs M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. & Anr.. Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberOriginal Case No. 13 of 1992
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Challdrashekhar, Advocate
JudgesV. S. Kokje, President, Mr. M. L. Tiwari, Member, Mrs. Meena Sapre, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(f)
Citation1993 (I) CPJ 577
Judgement DateJanuary 02, 1993
CourtMadhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


V. S. Kokje, President

  1. This is a complaint by a consumer who had bought a Montana ca r manufactured by M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 Bombay Garage, Jabalpur. According to the complainant even before the purchase of the car he was apprehensive of its qualities because of market reports and has in his letter dated 28.3.91 and 3.4.91 invited attention of Opposite Party No.1 to the adverse report of the vehicle and requested the Opposite Party No.1 to supply good quality car to dispel the adverse propaganda received by the car.

  2. On 22.4.91 the complainant was given delivery of the car by Bombay Garage, Jabalpur Opposite Party No.2. The car started giving trouble and had to be repaired frequently. The repairs were effected by Bombay Garage/Opposite Party No.1. Ultimately, engine trouble alsostaI1ed in the car and utter exasperation when the car was not restored to proper condition, the complainant filed this complaining claiming cost of the car, Insurance charges, what has spent on repairs, interest on the Bank loan and by way of damages as also compensation for physical and mental torture. The total claim of Rs. 4,78,093.62 was lodged.

  3. The Opposite Parties were duly served. Vakalathnama of Sh. B.S. Banlhia, Shri N.A. Khan and Shri A.A. Khan has been filed for M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd./Opposite Party No. 1 along with a written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 has sent a written reply through post attaching a certificate issued by M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. Opposite Party No. 1 that Opposite Party No.2 Bombay Garage, Jabalpur is nowhere responsible for the claim. None of the Opposite Parties however, appeared on 30th September, 1992, 7th November, 1992 and 28th November, 1992, the dates on which the case was taken up. In these circumstances, the complainant filed affidavit in support of the claim and closed his evidence. Arguments were heard and the case was closed for orders.

  4. Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the procedure specified in Sections 12, 13, 14 under the rules made there under for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as ma y he necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission. The procedure applicable to the case, therefore, would be the same as is provided in Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under:-

    "13(2) The District Forum shall...

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