Back
INDER SINGH MEHTA
Surya Kant Bhagra – Appellant
Versus
Honda Cars India Ltd. , through its President/CEO – Respondent
ORDER
Inder Singh Mehta, President.—Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Shimla, in consumer Complaint No.235/2019 titled Mr. Surya Kant Bhagra Vs. Honda Cars India Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a car, Honda Civic ZX, CVT model in the month of May, 2019 from the opposite party No.2/Lally Automobiles India Ltd. for a sum of Rs.22,39,229/-. As per the complainant, after taking the delivery of the car on 07.05.2019, he found that the car is having multiple defects such as broken, damaged rain sensor wire cover, continuous rattling noise inside the car cabin originating from mechanical parts located underneath the dashboard, intermittent Vibration in the car at engine RPM between 2000-3000 rpm from the engine compartment being felt by way of vibrations in the Car body/inside, Auto door lock based on speed sensing not working and Car foot well ambient lights were not working. Against a total payment of Rs.22,39,229/- duly received by the Courtesy Honda Shimla, invoices have been provided for an amount of Rs.22,17,129/- only and there is no expla
(1) Commercial Use Admission – A categorical admission of commercial use in the pleadings creates a jurisdictional hurdle. The Commission reaffirmed that whether a party is a “Consumer” must be decid....
(1) Defect – It is well-established that if a defect in goods cannot be determined without proper analysis, an independent expert report is required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.(2) Corporate Do....
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.
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
(1) Expert Evidence – The warranty obligation of the opposite party no.1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from manufacturing defect within th....
The court ruled that a manufacturing defect requires substantial evidence; observed minor issues in vehicles do not justify replacement without such evidence.
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
