Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1235/2017

Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manoj Kumar s/o Mahaveer Prasad Bhakar - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Jain

13 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1183/2017

 

Saga Automotive (India) Pvt.Ltd., E-4 Poddar Circle, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

Vs.

Manoj Kumar s/o Mahaveer Prasad Bhakar r/o Ward No. 25 Sangaria Hanumangarh at present r/o Plot no. 49, Inderpath Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1235/2017

 

Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. A-1/1, M.I.D.C. Five Star Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad Maharashtra.

Vs.

Manoj Kumar s/o Mahaveer Prasad Bhakar r/o Ward No. 25 Sangaria Hanumangarh at present r/o Plot no. 49, Inderpath Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 13.8.2018

 

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Paras Jain counsel for appellants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are filed against the order dated 24.8.2017 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellants is that vehicle was not defective. Time to time repairs were made and till date vehicle is plied for more than 90,000 km. The vehicle was get accidented and not covered under guarantee. Free services were provided hence, no deficiency could be attributed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original job sheets submitted by the appellant.

 

3

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was purchased on 18.9.2013. First service was made on 24.3.2014 and job sheet clearly shows that cooling problem was there. Again same problem persist in second and afterword services. It is true that the vehicle was accidented but service history shows that the vehicle was having starting problem and of less cooling. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held the appellant deficient and in view of the fact that the costing of the vehicle was about Rs. 10 lakhs and it was purchased in 2013 but due to the consistent problem of starting and cooling the respondent could not use the vehicle efficiently, compensation has also rightly been allowed by the Forum below. No interference is needed.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in both appeals and stand dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm