216-14 Harpreet Singh Sandhu Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Present : Counsel for the parties

Case was fixed for arguments. However, Swatantar Singh, Workshop Manager of M/s. Universal Motors on behalf of opposite party No.2 suffered a statement that he has brought the vehicle in question fully repaired to the satisfaction of Kawaljit Singh son of Jagjit Singh in the Forum today itself . At this stage Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant has received the vehicle in question after repairs , as stated by the opposite party. However, complainant presses for adequate compensation and costs. Since as a goowill gesture, the repairs required for making the vehicle in disute road worthy, have been provided by the oppsoite party No.2 to the satisfaction of the complainant, the claim of the complainant stands satisfied. However, claim for compensation and cost could not be made as a matter or right. We stand fortify on this point from the ruling Sushil Kumar Vs. Madan Mobile Gallery & Others in First Appeal No. 256 of 2015 decided on 9.4.2015 2015(2) CLT 574 of the Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula that the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act is to redress the grievances of the consumers. The Consumer Fora have not been established as earning profit cell. In these circumstances, no fault could be found with the impugned order which would call for interference of this Commission. The appeal being meritless is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed. In this case main grievance of the complainant has already been redressed without going for execution even. As such no case for grant of any compensation is made out & request stands declined. The case stands disposed of accordingly.

President

28.4.2016 Member Member