Back
GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, GOPAL CHANDRA SHIL, PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA
Prem Kishor Sharma – Appellant
Versus
National Garage, Authorized Dealer Tata Motors – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gautam Chourdiya, President—This complaint, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short), has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling a vehicle having manufacturing defects, seeking directions to the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to pay total amount of Rs.13,28,200/- (Thirteen Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred) on different heads i.e. Rs.1,90,000/- (One Lac Ninety Thousand) the amount taken as booking amount, Rs.8,66,136/- (Eight Lacs Sixty Six Thousand One Hundred & Thirty Six) the total invoice amount along with Rs.2,72,064/- (Two Lacs Seventy Two Thousand & Sixty Four) towards bank interest along with directions to the opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 for payment of compensation for mental harassment, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service along with cost of litigation Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) and any other relief as this Commission deems fit to award.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant booked a Tata Nexon Kraz+ vehicle and paid Rs.1,90,000/- as booking amount to the opposite party No.1
New vehicle with early repeated defects constitutes 'defect'; expert opinion not mandatory if cogent evidence; company director personal use qualifies as consumer; manufacturer-dealer jointly liable ....
A complainant must prove manufacturing defect in a vehicle by adequate and admissible evidence supported by an expert opinion to claim total replacement or refund of the purchase price.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
