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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 18355

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHIVAM MOTORS PVT LTD & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
YUGAL KISHORE RATHORE & ORS – Respondent
SC/22/A/24/95



Petitioner Advocates:Shri K. Z. Ansari ,Respondent Advocate: R-1 Shri B. Majumdar/R-4 Shri Sanjay Tiwari

FA/24/299 AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 19/02/2024 Date of Final Hearing: 29/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 22/08/2024 APPEAL No.- FA/24/95 IN THE MATTER OF :

1. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through: Chief Manager, Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Sector – 4/C, Sirgitti, Raipur Road, BILASPUR (C.G.) … O.P. No.1 /Appellant No.1

2. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through: Branch Manager, Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Branch: Tilai Banari Road, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. JANJGIR CHAMPA (C.G.) … O.P. No.2 /Appellant No.2 Both through: Shri K. Z. Ansari, Advocate Vs.

1. Yugal Kishor Rathore, S/o. Shri Pawan Kumar Rathore, R/o. Saragaon Chhote Gautiya Chowk, P.S. Saragaon, Dist. JANJGIR CHAMPA (C.G.) … Complainant /Respondent No.1 Through: Shri B. Majumdar, Advocate

2. Nand Lal Jhalariya, (Ex. Salesman), R/o. H. No.247, Ward No.18, Bastipara Budena, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. JANJGIR CHAMPA (C.G.) 495668 … O.P. No.3 /Respondent No.2 Through: Ex-parte

3. Tata Motors Ltd., 4th Floor, Ahura Center 82, Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri West, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA) 400 093 … O.P. No.4 /Respondent No.3 Through: Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Advocate Date of Institution: 23/04/2024 Date of Final Hearing: 29/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 22/08/2024 APPEAL No.- FA/24/299 IN THE MATTER OF : Tata Motors Limited, Through: Manager, Tata Motors Limited, 4th Floor, Ahura Center 82, Mahakali Campus Road, MIDC Andheri West, Mumbai, Registered Add.: Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, MUMBAI – 400 093 … O.P. No.4/Appellant Through: Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Advocate Vs.

1. Yugal Kishor Rathore, S/o. Shri Pawan Kumar Rathore, R/o. Saragaon Chhote Gautiya Chowk, P.S. Saragaon, Dist. JANJGIR CHAMPA (C.G.) … Complainant /Respondent No.1 Through: Shri B. Majumdar, Advocate FA/24/299

2. M/s. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through: Chief Manager, Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Sector – 4/C, Sirgitti, Raipur Road, BILASPUR (C.G.) … O.P. No.1 /Respondent No.2

3. M/s. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through: Branch Manager, Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Branch: Tilai Banari Road, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. JANJGIR CHAMPA (C.G.) … O.P. No.2 /Respondent No.3

4. M/s. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through: its Salesman, Branch: Tilai Banari Road, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. JANJGIR CHAMPA (C.G.) … O.P. No.3 /Respondent No.4 Resptd. Nos.2 to 4 through: Shri K. Z. Ansari, Advocate CORAM: -

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT IN ALL APPEALS: -

Shri B. Majumdar, Advocate for complainant.

Shri K.Z. Ansari, Advocate for opposite party Nos.1 & 2.

The matter was proceeded ex-parte against opposite party No.3 vide order dated 28.06.2024.

Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Advocate for opposite party No.4.

O RDE R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of both these appeals, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), arising out of the same impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter called the “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2022/123, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to repair the vehicle in question to the full satisfaction of the complainant within 45 days free of cost failing which new vehicle of the same model was directed to be provided to the complainant. Compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) were also directed to be paid within 45 days, failing which the awarded amount was directed to be paid with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have challenged the impugned order vide appeal No.FA/24/95 and opposite party No.4 vide FA/24/299 appeal No.FA/24/299. Hereinafter in this order, for the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referre

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top