SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 13305

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.Muthkumar Managing Director Scientific Agriculure Laboratory Pvt Ltd. Madurai Dt. – Appellant
Versus
Anamallais Motorsd Pvt Ltd Managing Director Kappalur MAdurai and another – Respondent
SC/CB1/33/CC/5/2020



Petitioner Advocates:Mr.J.Devasenan ,Respondent Advocate: Mr.M.Rajaraman - OP1, OP2 - called absent - set ex-parte.

Date of Complaint filed:11.02.2020 Date of Disposal:16.05.2024 IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI Present: -THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER C.C.No.05/2020 THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF MAY 2024.

K. Muthukumar, S/o.Late Kesava Chandra Raj, Managing Director, Scientific Agriculture Laboratory Pvt Ltd., 3/196, Natham Main Road, Manthikulam Villaku, Karavanur Post, Madurai District. ……Complainant.

-Vs-

1. Anamallais Motors Pvt Ltd., Through its Managing Director, 23, Sidco Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai-625 008.

2. Renault India Private Limited, Through its Managing Director, A.S.V. Ramana Towers, No.37,38,4th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.nagar, Chennai-600 017.

…..Opposite parties Counsel for Complainant : M/s.J.Devasenan, Advocate.

Counsel for 1st Opposite party : M/s.M. Rajaraman, Advocate.

Counsel for 2nd Opposite party : Ex-parte.

This complaint came before me for final hearing on 05.03.2024 and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

(Dictated in open court)

1. The Facts:

The complainant purchased a Renault Koleos Diesel car from the 1st opposite party who is the dealer and the car was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant experienced defects in the above car while driving. The vehicle while driving in the road made engine noise and the pickup was also suddenly varied. The check injunction system and check exhaust system was displayed in the daze board. The complainant left the vehicle for repairing to the 1st opposite party and he made payment on various dates as given below,

S.No. Date Particulars of Payments Amount.
1. 25.05.2013 Cash payment towards repair Rs.9948/-
2. 12.09.2013 Payment through cheque number 001265 at KVB Bank Madurai. Rs.12555/-
3. 14.12.2013 Payment through cheque number 001281 drawn at KVB bank madurai towards repair Rs.13392/-
4. 31.03.2014 Payment through cheque number 001828 towards repair. Rs.20564/-
5. 11.08.2014 Payment through cash. Rs.1955/-
6. 30.07.2015 Payment through cheque number 846471 drawn at PNB madurai. Rs.60000/-
7. 14.08.2015 Payment through cheque number 846512 drawn at PNB madurai. Rs.38600/-
8. 12.09.2015 Payment through cheque number 846685 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair. Rs.6201/-
9. 14.01.2016 Payment through cheque number 846846 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair Rs.4806/-
10. 09.07.2016 Payment through cheque number Rs.19791/-

381929 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair.
11. 12.01.2017 Payment through cheque number 381929 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair. Rs.26218/-
12. 11.03.2017 Payment through cheque number 324002 drawn at PNB madurai. Rs.24411/-
13 14.04.2017 Payment through cheque number 000528 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair Rs.12000/-
14. 11.12.2017 Payment through cheque number 694686 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair. Rs.4000/-
15. 24.02.2018 Payment through cheque number 877708 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair. Rs.60538/-
16. 04.06.2018 Payment through cheque number 397120 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair Rs.19000/-
17. 09.08.2018 Payment through cheque number 171732 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair Rs.23000/-
18. 17.08.2018 Payment through cheque number 171749 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair Rs.2300/-
19. 05.06.2019 Payment through cheque number 001132 drawn at PNB madurai towards repair Rs.149793/-
Total Rs.552333/-

Despite the above payments made the above defects were repeated and not subsided. Hence alleging manufacturing defect and deficiency in service, the complaint is filed on either to replace a new car or to pay Rs.27,40,290/- with interest as well as to pay Rs.15 lakhs towards compensation.

2. The 1st opposite party in the written version admitted that the car was purchased

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top