Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, CJ, MR. DINESH SINGH, J
M/S. KATARIA AUTOMILES – Appellant
Versus
PRABODHKANT DAMODARAS PANDYA & ANR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the petition and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute revolves around recurring issues with the vehicle. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments about the procedural requirement related to defects. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court emphasizes no need for defect determination procedure. (Para 8) |
| 5. assessment of justice and fairness in the case. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. final ruling and directives to close the case. (Para 11 , 12) |
Taken up through video conferencing.
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) in challenge to the Order dated 05.10.2007 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1066 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 06.11.2006 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad Rural (the ‘District Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 463 of 2004.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 06.11.2006, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 05.10.2007 and the Petition.
3. The disputes relates to recurring problems in a new veh
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
