First Appeal No. 115 of 2015. Case: Rajiv Puri Vs Automobile Kapoor (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 115 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate and For Respondents: Updip Singh, Advocate
JudgesJ.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)), J.S. Gill and H.S. Guram, Members
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
Judgement DateJanuary 09, 2017
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


J.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)), (Chandigarh)

  1. The appellant has directed this appeal against order dated 12.12.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar (in short the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs was dismissed. The respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties and appellant is complainant in the original complaint before the District Forum and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

  2. The apercu of factual matrix of the case is that complainant purchased one car of make Tata Safari DHR bearing chassis No. 403001 FRZN11804, engine No. 21791C, Model-2008 bearing registration No. PB-02-W0067 for the total price of Rs. 9,12,802/- from OPs. OP No. 1 is the authorized dealer and OP No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said car and the car was delivered to complainant on 22.10.2008. After purchase of car, two years extended warranty was issued by OP No. 1 for the said car with regard to any mechanical/electrical/emission or manufacturing defect, if occurred during the two years extended warranty in addition to the manufacturing warranty. It was clear that it would expire on completion of four years or 1,50,000 kilometer run from the date of purchase i.e. 22.08.2008, whichever took place earlier. There occurred defect in the engine's noise in the said car within validity of said extended warranty. This fact was brought to the notice of OP No. 1. The vehicle was taken to workshop of OP No. 1 and this assurance was extended to the complainant regarding removal of the defect within a short period. Job slip bearing the particulars of the vehicle and the defect of the car was issued by OP to complainant on 24.02.2012 itself and the current running of the car was recorded as 49411 KMs. OP No. 1 after dilly-dallying over the matter straightway stated to complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the car and it could not be removed. The complainant remained deprived of the enjoyment of the use of the car due to above defect. The complainant, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation and seeking further direction to OP No. 1 to remove the defect in the car of the complainant by setting it right.

  3. Pursuant to notice, OP No. 1 filed written reply and raised preliminary objections that complaint is only an abuse of process of law having been filed on vague and mala fide intention. It was further averred that complainant is not consumer of OP No. 1. The complainant used the vehicle for commercial activities and is not a consumer. The complainant has failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operator's service book for smooth and better performance of the vehicle in question at optimum cost. The recommended services should be availed before expiry of above mentioned kilometers range or period in months, whichever occurred first. It was further averred that as...

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