AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 379 wordsTHE Petitioner/Complainant purchased a Tata Indigo car bearing Registration No. DL -4C -U -7026 on 20.02.2006 from HIM Motors, New Delhi, OP -2, an Authorized Dealer of Tata Motors, who is OP No. 1.
THE car, after covering 556 kms started giving problems and repeatedly visited the OP -2 ; but did not get satisfactory response and car was defective. The Complainant, after 17 months of the purchase of the car, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (herein after, District Forum) New Delhi, with the prayer that the OPs, the dealer and the manufacturer be directed to replace the vehicle and to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for mental agony, physical exertion and financial losses.
ON consideration of evidence of both the parties, the District Forum directed the OPs, to get the vehicle repaired all the defects mentioned in the expert report, free of cost, deliver the vehicle to the Complainant free of all defects and pay Rs.10,000/ - as compensation and litigation cost. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum, the complainant filed Appeal No. 11/572 before the Hon''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (herein after, ''State Commission'') Delhi, and prayed for the replacement of vehicle, with compensation be enhanced.
THE State Commission after considering the evidence on file and the expert report, dismissed the appeal.
AGGRIEVED by the order of State Commission, the Complainant preferred this revision.
WE have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for Complainant vehemently argued and brought our attention towards the Expert Report of Shri Manoj Mishra, Head of Department of Automobile Engineering, Pusa Polytechnic, New Delhi. However, the report does not show that the vehicle has any manufacturing defect. It only mentions that there may be some problem at the time of sub -assembling of engine, which will require Rs.80,000/ - for its repair.
ALSO , both the Foras below have already ordered for removal of these defects and to repair the vehicle without taking any charges, from the Complainant. The contention of the Counsel for the Complainant with regard to replacement of vehicle has no merit.
WE do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.