NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3255/2013

SHIVANI TAWANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHINDRA RENAULT PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARJUN GARG

19 Sep 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3255 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 16/05/2013 in Appeal No. 775/2013 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
WITH
IA/5735/2013,IA/5764/2013
1. SHIVANI TAWANI
W/O. DR. OMPRAKASH TAWANI, 115 SANGHI STREET, MHOW,
INDORE
MADHYA PRADESH
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHINDRA RENAULT PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS.
GATEWAY BUILDING, APOLLO WONDER,
MUMBAI - 400039
MAHARASTRA
2. AUTHORISED CUSTOMER CARE, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD.,
MAHINDRA TOWERS, ROAD NO-13, WORLI,
MUMBAI - 400018
MAHARASTRA
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATWA AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD.,
LASURIYA MORI DEWAS NAKA, A.B ROAD,
INDORE
MADHYA PRADESH
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Mohit Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 19 Sep 2013
ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

 

           The State Commission rendered the order:-

“The applicant had purchased a LMV Logan DSL on 20.12.2007 for a sum of Rs.6,40,197/-.  It was noticed that there was leakage of oil from the engine and other defects.  Defects were notified to the dealer and the dealer serviced the vehicle and removed the defects but the defects reoccurred.  The vehicle had been used for 15000 km.  Despite the fact that the vehicle had been used for 15000 km. the District Forum directed the dealer to provide a new vehicle to the appellant subject to depreciation on amount of its use for 15000 km.  In addition a sum of Rs.10000/- was provided towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs.  We feel that nothing more can be claimed by the appellant except what has already been provided by the District Forum.  We do not find any substance or merit in this appeal.  The appeal is dismissed.”

 

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question is not in the possession of the petitioner for the last five years

but we are of the considered view that no better order can be passed by the fora below.  The proper course for the petitioner is to execute the decree as has been passed by both the fora.

          The revision petition is dismissed.

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.