Mahinder Bansal VS Hyundai Motors India Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUBHASH CHANDRA, J. RAJENDRA
Mahinder Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Hyundai Motors India Limited – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Durga Prashad, Mr. Padam Parkash, Mr. Harsh Kucchal, Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Hardik Vashisht, Advocate with Authority Letter, Ms. Shiksha JH, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Ex parte vide order dated 10.02.2017

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenges order dated 16.02.2016 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the “State Commission”) allowing Appeal No. 964 of 2015 and setting aside the order dated 31.08.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short, “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 108 of 2014.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us. The delay of 21 days in the filing of the revision petition was condoned in the interest of justice.

3. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner had purchased an I-20 ASTA CRD1 car on 04.04.2013 for a consideration of Rs.7,79,000/- from respondent no.2 which was duly registered with registration number HR14 J8011. The vehicle was covered with warranty for a period of 36 months or 80,000 kilometres from the date of delivery. On 14.08., after running for 8500 kms the car met with an accident due to failure of brake near Karnal. The peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document