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

First Appeal Nos. 828 and 858 of 2014. Case: Metro Motors Vs Krishan Lal and Ors.. Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberFirst Appeal Nos. 828 and 858 of 2014
Party NameMetro Motors Vs Krishan Lal and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: S.R. Bansal, Advocate and For Respondents: N.P. Sharma, Advocate
JudgesNawab Singh, J. (President), B.M. Bedi, Member (J) and Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
CitationIV (2015) CPJ 22 (Har.)
Judgement DateAugust 13, 2015
CourtHaryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

B.M. Bedi, Member (J)

  1. This order shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals bearing Nos. 828 and 858 of 2014 having arisen out of common order dated August, 22nd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'District Forum'), Yamuna Nagar, in complaint No. 179 of 2010 filed by Krishan Lal. Krishan Lal-complainant (respondent No. 1 herein) purchased a car, Tata Marina LX Dicor make, on May 16th, 2007, from M/s. Metro Motors-opposite party No. 1, the authorized dealer of TATA Motors, that is, the manufacturer of the car. The warranty of the car was for 18 months. The car broke down on October 6th, 2009 and the same was towed to M/s. Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt. for repairs. The vehicle was inspected by the engineers and it was noticed that all four injectors were defective due to Fuel adulteration. Since the warranty period of the car had expired, so the complainant was informed telephonically to get the car repaired on payment basis but to no response. Letters dated November 10th, 2009 and March 24th, 2010 (Annexure A and (b) were also written to the complainant but the complainant did not turn either to get the car repaired or to take the car back, rather, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the car was having manufacturing defect.

  2. The opposite parties contested complaint while denying the averments of the complainant.

  3. After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint directing the opposite parties as under:

    (a) To replace the defective car in question with a new one of the same model and if the same model is not available, then to refund the price of the car i.e. Rs. 5,89,948 along with simple interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 6.10.2009 i.e. the date wherefrom the car is lying parked at the workshop of OP No. 1 to till its realization.

    (b) To pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation on account of harassment and for depriving the complainant from availing the facility of car in question for such a long period of about 5 years i.e. @ Rs. 20,000 per year.

    (c) To pay further a sum of Rs. 5500 on account of litigation charges including the Advocate's fee, etc.

    The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period otherwise all the aforesaid awarded...

To continue reading

Request your trial