Back
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, AJITH KUMAR D., RADHAKRISHNAN K. R.
Authorised Officer M/s Popular Motor World Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sathyajith M. S. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in C.C.No.267/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (the District Commission for short).
2. On 16.09.2022 the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to repair the defects of the car owned by the complainant within one month free of cost, to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) being the amount collected as service charges and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.
2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.
3. The complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service with respect to a used car which was purchased from the opposite party. On 7.8.2023 the complainant had purchased 2009 model i.20 diesel car from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.4,23,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand only).
4. At the time of purchase, the opposite party had assured that there will be warranty for one year. But within few months the vehicle became defective and the complainant had entrusted the vehicle with the service station of the opposite party. The
Sale of used and defective car – As long as complainant never claims benefit under warranty, question of impleading manufacturer does not arise.
(1) Third party - The complainant cannot insist that the work should be conducted only by the third opposite party. No fault could be attributed on the part of the first and second opposite parties a....
(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....
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
Automobile – Repair charges of luxury vehicles are expected to be on higher side.
(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 central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, influen....
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
