SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

M.SHREESHA
Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar Ahnihotri – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Nidhi Mehrotra, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Mukhil, Advocate

ORDER

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—Aggrieved by the order passed in Consumer Complaint No.71/2014 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’), The first Opposite Party preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’). By the impugned order, the State Commission partly allowed the Complaint with the direction to the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects with respect to the noise in the front wheel of the car within a period of one month, together with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and costs of Rs. 11,000/-.

2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant purchased an Audi Q5 2.0 TDI QUAI IBIS vide Invoice No.11-12-V032, dated 31.08.2011, at a price of Rs. 40,43,000/-, from the first Opposite Party. It is averred that immediately after purchase, the complainant noticed a continuous sound problem/ noise from the front side of the wheel during the application of the breaks. It is pleaded that despite several visits, the first Opp




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top