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

PREM NARAIN
N. K. SETHI – Appellant
Versus
MARUTI UDYOG LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Authorised Representative, for the Respondents

ORDER

Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.8.2010 of the Stale Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, (in short 'the State Commission').

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.4.2002, the complainant purchase one Esteem VX model of Maruti Car from respondent No. 2 against their invoice No. 166 dated 14.4.2002 for a total sum of Rs. 5,94,073. The car was registered in the name of petitioner vide registration No. DL 3C T 1748 dated 16.4.2002. On 17.4.2002, when the petitioner drove the car he observed that there were some rattling noises in the car and the car gave jerks and jolts while changing gear. On 18.4.2002, the petitioner visited the showroom of M/s. Bhandari Automobiles on 18.4.2002 and informed them about the rattling noises and jerks. He was told not to worry as new cars do have some teething problems and after driving about 1000 kms. on the first service he could get them rectified from any authorised workshop. On 5.5.2002 after running the car for 1000 kms when the rattling noises and jerks and jolts did not disappear, the petitioner went to M/s. Car Care Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, which is an auth

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