BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
FA.No.854 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.1069 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM-I,HYDERABAD
Between:
K.Raji Reddy S/o late K.Chandra Reddy
aged 55 years, Advocate & Spl. Standing Counsel
for CT Dept., High Court of A.P., R/o 76/2RT,
Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad-059
1.
2. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
,New Delhi-044
3. PatnyPlaza, S.P.Road
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2
Counsel for the Respondent No.3
QUORUM:
AND
SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order:(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member.)
***
1. The appellant being not satisfied with the amount of`15,000/- awarded towards compensation by the District Forum, filed the appeal. The appellant had filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking replacement of car, damages and compensation.
2. `2000/-
3.
4. nd5.
6. `15,000/- towards compensation and costs of`2,000/-.
7.
8.
9.
10. Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr” inAppeal (civil) 3734 of 2000 decided on 29.3.2006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in case of manufacturing defect in a vehicle, the defective part can only be ordered to be replaced and where there is no manufacturing defect replacement of the parts or of the vehicle cannot be ordered.
11. In the aforementioned circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings returned by the District forum as regards the failure of the appellant to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and his consequent disentitlement to the reliefs sought for.
12.
KMK*
