View 1690 Cases Against Mahindra & Mahindra
ANAND GARG filed a consumer case on 06 Apr 2017 against MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/831/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Dec 2017.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
First appeal No.831 of 2015
Date of the Institution: 01.10.2015
Date of Decision: 06.04.2017
Anand Garg S/o Shyam Lal Garg, r/o H.NO.124, New Grain Market, Samalkha, District Panipat.
…..Appellant
Versus
1. Mahindra, PP Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.41/2, Opp HP Petrol Pump, Bhalgarh Road, Sonepat through its prop.
2. Mahindra, PP Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office Nirmal Motor Building, Meerut Road, Karnal, through its Prop.
3. Dehradun Premier Motor (P) Ltd., Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Haridwar Bye-Pass Road,Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun (UK) through its prop.
4. Krishna Motors, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Dhalwala Industrial Area, Rishikesh (UK) through its Prop.
.….Respondents
CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Present:- None for appellant.
None for the respondents.
O R D E R
R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
It was alleged by complainant that he purchased Bolero ZLX jeep on 31.12.2013 from opposite party (O.P.) No.1. When his family was going from Samalkha to Rishikesh, there was some trouble with the vehicle near Dehradun and was got repaired from O.P.No.3 against payment of Rs.27525/- whereas warranty period was existing. When he returned from Rishikesh on 25.07.2014 some problem again cropped up and he went to O.P.No.4. He again spent Rs.11,876/- for removal of defect. When vehicle was checked by O.P.No.1 it was told that Rs.25,000/- were to be spent on repairs and they did not honour warranty. Instead of refunding amount already deposited by him more amount was asked. They be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for financial loss, Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment etc. and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. As O.P.No.4 was proceeded ex parte, O.P.Nos.1 to 3 filed joint reply controverting his averments and alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Complainant failed to show that defects were covered by warranty. If vehicle was not handeled properly by him, they were not supposed to pay for the same. As per goodwill jesture only 50% of amount was charged from him. No cause of action accrued at Sonepat, so District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) was not having jurisdiction to try this complaint. At the time of inspection injector and fuel pump were found tempered. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss complaint.
3. After hearing parties, District Forum, Sonepat allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 01.09.2015 and directed as under:-
“Accordingly we hereby direct the respondents NO.1,3 and 4 to refund 50% amount of Rs.27525/- and Rs.11876/- to the complainant.”
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-complainant has filed this appeal.
5. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant, so the same is being decided on merits because it is pertaining to the year 2015. File perused.
6. Appellant-complainant has miserably failed to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. As per evidence injector and fuel pump were found tempered. So the warranty came to an end. As per goodwill gesture the vehicle was repaired at 50% cost. Despite that learned District Forum has ordered to pay 50% of the amount paid by him, as mentioned above. As amount is very meager it will not be appropriate to disturb impugned order. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
April 06th, 2017 Urvashi Agnihotri R.K.Bishnoi, Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl.Bench
S.K.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.