Case nº First Appeal No. 339 of 2008 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 21, 2014 (case General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mitali Aggarwal)
| Judge | For Appellant:Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Kaustubh Sinha and Adarsh Ganesh, Advocates |
| President | K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | August 21, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)
-
Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 03.07.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in C.C. No. C-88/2002-Ms. Mitali Aggarwal Vs. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. & Ors. by which, complaint was allowed and OP No. 2 was directed to refund the cost of the vehicle and further to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
-
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 purchased Opel Astra Club Car from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 2 on the assurance that car is free from all mechanical and manufacturing defects and it has been test driven in one of the best test-tracks of the country and also tested by the technicians. Employees of OP Nos. 3&4 also assured same things. It was further submitted that since 12.02.2001, the purchased car was not running properly and despite numerous complaints to OPs, defects have not been rectified. Car is giving humming sound from the engine and it increases on starting air conditioner. It was further submitted that there was water leakage from the sunroof, steering was noisy and wobbling/play giving low average and colour of spoiler has faded. Complainant got first service of his car at the workshop of OP No. 4, but the problems still persist and car is not running properly. He has further narrated complaint numbers along with job cards and mileage, which are as follows:
-
Every time OP's concerned persons insisted the complainant to get some parts of the vehicle changed, but still the problem persists and in such circumstances, husband of the complainant wrote many letters to OP Nos. 1 & 2 for rectifying the defects, but with no result. OPs have committed unfair trade practice. Complainant sent legal notice dated 11.02.2002 for refund of the whole amount or replace the vehicle, but nothing has been done. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and matter is exclusively travelled by Civil Court. It was further submitted that OPs never assured complainant that Opel car is free from all mechanical and manufacturing defects and it has been test driven in one of the best test-tracks of the country and also tested by the technicians. OPs further denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial