Daya Anil Motors VS Mukesh Kumar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUBHASH CHANDRA
Daya Anil Motors – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Devansh Arya and Mr. Taranjit Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-1, Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advocate for R-2

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) against the order dated 25.01.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.90 of 2012.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant had purchased a three wheeler scooter (Vikram 410 G make) bearing registration number DL-1 LH-2898 from the petitioner in November 2006 for a price of Rs 1,45,108/- excluding insurance charges. The complainant paid Rs.35,000/- and Rs 95,150/- was financed by respondent no. 2. The balance of Rs 14,958/- was to be paid by the respondent no. 1 by 02.01.2007. On 02.01.2007 the respondent no.1 issued a cheque of Rs 11,658/- towards the balance amount and left the three wheeler in the premises of the petitioner. He then filed a consumer complaint (No. 78 of 2007) in the District Forum, Faridabad alleging that the three wheeler purchased by him had developed serious manufacturing defect and had become unfit for plying on 05.11.2006 and thereafter again on 20.11.2006. It was alleged that the respondent refuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document