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

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



Petitioner Advocates:DEVENDRA SINGH JHALA 9828058057 ,Respondent Advocate: Prashant Parmar 9782067057

##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

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