Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ, Mr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Kataria Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Pranshankar Jagannath Vyas – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. purchase of defective vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim for compensation due to service deficiencies. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. responses and defenses from the manufacturer and dealer. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. review of claims and responses. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. determination of manufacturing defects and liability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. final order and compensation directive. (Para 17 , 18) |
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 18.10.2013 rendered in Complaint No. 221 of 2012 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City (Additional), original opponent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed the present appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that original complainant Pranshankar Jagannath Vyas, aged about 82 years, a practising lawyer purchased one Maruti Ritz BS - IV - DRDCS I bearing chassis No. 104337 and Engine No. l227733 manufactured by opponent Nos. 1 to 3 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. from Kataria Automobiles Ltd. - opponent Nos. 4 and 5, who are dealers of said car by paying Rs. 4,75,782. He took delivery of the car on 1.7.2010. After taking delivery of the car, the complainant noticed following defects in the car:
(1
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
