Back
PADMA PANDEY, RAJESH K. ARYA
Gurvinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Modern Automobile through Authorised Representative – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Padma Pandey, Presiding Member—Vide this common order we are dispose of above captioned appeals i.e. FA/163/2025 filed by the complainant-Gurvinder Kaur & FA/194/2025 filed by the dealer - M/s Modern Automobile arising out of order dated 29.01.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’) vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.54 of 2024 filed by the complainant has been partly allowed against both opposite parties No.1 & 2 by granting following relief:—
“11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-
i) to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainant towards the cost of installation of defogger and compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her.
ii) to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
12. This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (si
(1) Manufacturer’s Sole Responsibility (Section 84) – The liability for delivering a vehicle without a specifically requested feature (the rear defogger) rests solely with the manufacturer. Because t....
(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....
Unless manufacturer’s knowledge is proved, decision fastening liability upon manufacturer would be untenable.
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 ....
The purchase of a vehicle by a company for its managing director's personal use does not constitute a commercial purpose, allowing for consumer protection remedies.
(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....
(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 requirement of substantial evidence to support claims of manufacturing defects in consumer protection cases is essential for claims to be upheld.
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
