Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2013. Case: Manjeet Singh Parmar Vs S.S. Traders. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Surender Saklani, Advocate and For Respondents: N.L. Sahil, Advocate vice, Vivek Thakur and Arvind Sharma, Advocates |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, President and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | 2014 (II) ShimLC 848 |
| Judgement Date | May 06, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, President
-
Present complaint has been filed, seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties:--
(a) AB-10 excavator back Hoe with Engine No. 4H321600001200011 chassis No. AB 10 CHB00130005 be replaced, as the present Excavator is having inherent defects and frequent break downs.
(b) complainant be compensated to the tune of Rs. 28 lacs for loss of business due to frequent break down and consequential idle period of the excavator.
(c) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- be awarded due to non-issue of cash memo., resulting in non-registration of excavator.
(d) Compensation of Rs. 1.00 lac be awarded for mental torture, anxiety and harassment.
(e) Opposite parties be directed to pay money equivalent to the amount of interest paid by the complainant to the bank, on the loan raised for purchase of the excavator.
(f) Litigation charges and Counsel fee of Rs. 20,000/- be also ordered to be paid.
(g) Any other relief to which the complainant may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of case.
It is alleged that the complainant purchased an excavator, manufactured by opposite party No. 1, from opposite party No. 2, on 16.02.2013, for a sum of Rs. 23.50 lacs and paid the price in full. When the vehicle was delivered, papers required for its registration were not made available and because of that the vehicle has not been registered and has remained idle. It is also stated that the vehicle has manufacturing defects, on account of which it requires replacement. Also, it is alleged that documents required for registration of the vehicle have not been supplied, despite repeated requests, and the defects pointed out in the vehicle have also not been removed, though the warranty period is still in force.
-
Opposite parties have filed replies and contested the complaint. It is stated that competent authority has been approached for granting approval for registration of the vehicles of the Make, which was sold to the complainant, and that the approval is still awaited. It is stated that as soon as the approval is received, requisite documents shall be made available to the complainant to enable him to get the vehicle registered. Allegations that the vehicle is defective, or it was not repaired within warranty period, have been denied.
-
Rejoinders to both the replies have been filed by the complainant, in which it is not denied that the approval from the competent authority has been sought and that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial