Back
INDER JIT SINGH
Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
L. Sunil Reddy – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 02.07.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Vijaywada (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.467/2015 in which order dated 27.11.2014, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 56/2012 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission and District Forum.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Appellant-1; Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1; Respondent-2 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2) was Appellant-2 and the Respondent-3 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-3) was Respondent-2 in the said FA/467/2015 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP-1; Respondent-1 was Complainant; Respondent-2 was OP-2 and Respondent-3 was
OP-3 before the District Forum in the CC/56/2012.
3. Notice was issued to the Respon
Manufacturing defect in vehicle must be established by adducing expert evidence.
(1) Consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating impact of a collision on theories based on velocity and force.(2) Limitation will run from the day defect surfaces in a case.
Compensation held justified for non-opening of front airbags on accident of car.
The requirement of substantial evidence to support claims of manufacturing defects in consumer protection cases is essential for claims to be upheld.
(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....
The court ruled that a manufacturing defect requires substantial evidence; observed minor issues in vehicles do not justify replacement without such evidence.
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
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
