CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. vs M.P.SINGH

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 March 2006 · Citation: 2006 0 NCDRC 117 : 2006 3 CPJ 326

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.GUPTA , P.D.SHENOY J.
Ask AI about this case

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

2 paragraphs · 340 words
1.

PETITIONERS were the opposite parties. Complaint filed by the respondent/complainant on contest was allowed by the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000 to the respondent on the ground that the vehicle supplied was having starting problem and A/ C tripping due to which respondent had to take it to the authorized service station of the petitioners repeatedly. Dissatisfied with District Forum''s order the respondent filed appeal. The State Commission enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3,000 to 20,000 observing that the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop by the respondent 11 times within a short span of about 9 months for removal of the defects. It is this order, which is being challenged in revision by the petitioners.

2.

CONTENTION advanced by Mr. Aditya Narain for petitioners is that the affidavit of R. Singh, Works Manager of M/s. Cargo Motors (P) Ltd., filed by the petitioners was not taken note of by the Fora below and the respondent had acted in breach of warranty by getting installed security locking system from an outside agency. To be only noticed that the affidavit of said R. Singh is referred to in the order of District Forum. This affidavit notices that battery drain was due to faulty security locking system which the respondent got installed from an outside agency. It could not thus be said that affidavit of R. Singh was not taken note of. Admittedly, the petitioners had not challenged the order of District Forum awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000 meaning thereby that they did not dispute the ground noted above on which said compensation was awarded by the District Forum. Since the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop 11 times within a span of about 9 months by the respondent, the State Commission was fully justified in enhancing the meagre compensation of Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 20,000. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.