Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Poonam V. Maharshi, President, Nisha Amol Chavhan, Judicial Member
Dnyaneshwar Tukaram Wagh – Appellant
Versus
Hyundai Motor Ind. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts involving complaint against manufacturer for defective vehicle and injury. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. opponent arguments regarding jurisdiction and maintainability following insurance settlement. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. principle of indemnity prevents double recovery for identical pecuniary losses. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. suppression of technical evidence constitutes unfair trade practice; non-pecuniary losses are recoverable. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. final orders and directives based on findings of deficiency. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT
(Date: 02-04-2026)
Per: Hon’ble Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member
1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/113/2016 is filed under the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant against Opponents.
2. The brief facts of the case of Complainant that, he is working as Software Engineer in the Ltd. Company by name Deloitte Consulting India Ltd., situated at Powai, Mumbai.
3. The Complainant stated that he has to travel from Kalyan to Powai for his job so he decided to purchase vehicle for traveling and convenience. Accordingly he purchase
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
