UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
Honda Cars India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sudesh Berry – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against national commission's order. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. district forum's observations on liability. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. continuation of appeals through commission. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. manufacturer's liability established. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's justification for appeals. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“National Commission” for short) in Revision Petition No.2308 of 2017.
3. The appellant manufactures “Honda City Cars” and one such car was purchased by respondents no.1 to 3 herein in the year 1999. The car continued to be under their ownership and possession till 26.09.2010 when the car suffered damage in an accident which occurred at Dabri Bus Stand, New Delhi. The car was taken to the authorized service centre (respondent no.5 herein) for repairs. The car was insured and, as such, the surveyor of the insurance company found the estimated cost of repairs at the level of Rs.1,50,000/-.
4. Alleging deficiency on part of the appellant herein as well as the dealer and the service centre, respondents no.1 to 3 filed complaint no.DF.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that even in the absence of a manufacturing defect, the totality of the facts and the condition of the purchased vehicle may warrant compensation u....
(1) Evidence - The District Forum in pursuance of its mandate under Section 13 was required to have the necessary evidence produced before it prior to drawing an adverse inference.(2) Order to replac....
Unless manufacturer’s knowledge is proved, decision fastening liability upon manufacturer would be untenable.
The liability of the service provider hinges on actual failures in service, and insurers must accurately assess claims based on their policy obligations.
The requirement of substantial evidence to support claims of manufacturing defects in consumer protection cases is essential for claims to be upheld.
(1) Expert Evidence – The warranty obligation of the opposite party no.1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from manufacturing defect within th....
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.