2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2267
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
FORCE MOTORS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MR. MAHIPAL SINGH AHADA – Respondent
SC/CB2/8/A/74/2023
##PAGE1##
BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, UDAIPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 74/2023
Force Motors Ltd.
A company incorporated under (CIN L34102PN1958PLCO 11172) Registered office at Mumbai- Pune Road, Akurdi,
Pune- 411035
…Appellant/Orig. Opponent No. 2
-VERSUS-
Mr. Mahipal Singh Ahada
S/o Himmat Singh R/o Barbudniya, Tehsil Sagwada, Dist.
Dungarpur (Raj.)
…Respondent No. 1/Complainant
M/s Jyoti Automobiles
Address: Shamlji Highway, NH-8, Near ST Workshop,
Motipura, Himmatnagar (Gujarat)- 383001
Respondent No.2/ Orig. Opponent No. 1
##PAGE2##FA/74/2023 Force Motors Limited. Vs. Mahipal Singh Ahada & Anr.
Before
HON’BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL – MEMBER, J.
HON’BLE MR. R. N. SARSWAT - MEMBER
Present:
For Appellant: Ms. D. S. Jhala, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Prashant Parmar, Advocate
Dated: 27-03-2026
*Judgment*
Authored by: Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat – Member
The present appeal has been preferred by Force Motors
Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant/ Opponent No. 2 against the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as the DCDRC) in Consumer Complaint No. CC/66/2021, whereby the learned DCDRC allowed the complaint filed by Mr. Mahipal Singh Ahada (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) holding the present Appellant and Respondent No.2
liable for deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice.
Complainant’s Version
The Complainant submitted that he purchased a vehicle,
namely Trax Cruiser, bearing Chassis No. MC1D4JA3KP08568 and Engine No. D69012071 on 03/11/2018, from M/s Jyoti Automobiles (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent No. 1/
Dismissed Page 2 of 13
##PAGE3##FA/74/2023 Force Motors Limited. Vs. Mahipal Singh Ahada & Anr.
Respondent No. 2). The said vehicle was covered under a warranty of 3 years or 300,000 kilometers, whichever was
earlier.
It was averred that on 13.08.2021, the vehicle developed
abnormal engine noise and subsequently the engine ceased to function altogether. Upon approaching Opponent No. 1, the Complainant was assured that since the vehicle was within the warranty period, necessary repairs would be carried out free of
cost, including replacement of the engine, if required.
However, contrary to the said assurance, the Complainant
was compelled to incur an expenditure of Rs. 28,000/- towards towing charges, and Rs. 9,300/- towards hiring of an alternative vehicle. Further, despite the assurance of free repair under warranty, the Opponent refused to release the vehicle unless an
amount of Rs. 46,004/- was paid by the Complainant.
The Complainant further contended that:
No servicing facilities were provided during the COVID-19. The COVID-19 period was not excluded while calculating
the warranty period, thereby depriving the Complainant
of availing warranty benefits.
No free repairs were provided despite the vehicle having
run only approximately 54,000 kilometers.
The service coupon book was never issued to the
Complainant to date.
Dismissed Page 3 of 13
##PAGE4##FA/74/2023 Force Motors Limited. Vs. Mahipal Singh Ahada & Anr.
Therefore, the Opponents constitute a deficiency in service
and unfair trade practice under the applicable law.
Proceedings before the DCDRC
Accordingly, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/66/2021 before the DCDRC, on 27.10.2021, seeking the
following reliefs:
1. Replacement of the engine of the vehicle;
2. Refund of Rs. 46,004/- towards the sum charged for repairs;
3. Issuance of the service book;
4. Reimbursement of Rs. 28,000/- towards towing charges and
Rs. 9,300/- towards hiring of an alternative vehicle;
5. Payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards other direct and indirect
expenses;
6. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony;
7. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service;
8. Payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses;
9. Any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
In support of his case, the Complainant tendered his
eviden