Delhi

StateCommission

CC/295/2014

NEERAD PANDAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Aug 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
Complaint Case No. CC/295/2014
 
1. NEERAD PANDAY
CHAMBER No.52-53, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI-01.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.
PALAM GURGAON ROAD, GURGAON-122015. (HARYANA).
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

 

                       Date of Decision:   04.08.2014

                                                            

C - 295/2014

 

Neerad Panday, (Adv.)

S/o Dr. R.P. Panday,

Off./Chamber No. 52-53,

Patiala House Court,

New Delhi-01.

 

Presently at:

 

R/o 7/72, Sector-2,

Rajender Nagar,

Sahibabad-201005,

Ghaziabad, (U.P.)

 

 

 

 

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………… Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon-122015 (Haryana).

 

Through its CMD/

Concern Officer.

Vs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ……….. Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

Coram

SalmaNoor,PresidingMember

 

NP Kaushik,Member(Judicial)

 

 

 

1.

Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)  

    
                                          
  1. We have heard Shri Neerad Panday, Complainant who is incidentally an advocate, on admission.
  2. Facts in brief are that the Complainant purchased Alto K-10, LXI, BSIV car on 02.02.2013 for a consideration of less than Rs. 4 lac.  Complainant went for service to a dealer named Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jhilmil, Shahdara on 25.05.2014.  He was charged an amount of Rs. 4,000/-.  At the time of tendering the bill to the complainant, the dealer / workshop made a recommendation that rust had developed on the body due to daily hard water wash. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.05.2014 to the manufacturer of the car.  Complainant in his present complaint has claimed a compensation of Rs. 50 lacs along with interest @ 36%.
  3. Clearly, the complainant did not go to the workshop with the complaint of rusting.  He had gone there only for routine service.  For a vehicle for the price of which was Rs. 4 lac, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 50 lacs without giving any reason.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the complaint in this Commission is not maintainable being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction.  Complaint is hence dismissed in limini.
  4. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
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.