View 1426 Cases Against Automobile
Mr.P.Sarguru,S/o.Palanivelu filed a consumer case on 03 Jun 2022 against M/s.MPL Automobile Agency (P) LTD in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/188/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Jul 2022.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (NORTH)
@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., :PRESIDENT
TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E., : MEMBER-I
THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA., :MEMBER-II
TUESDAY THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022
C.M.P.109/2018 in C.C. NO.188/2016
Mr.P.Sarguru, M/A-42 years,
S/o.N.Palanivelu,
Old.No.546, New No.16,
Vandikaran street,
Chennai-600 042
…....Petitioner/ Complainant
/ verus/
1.M/s.MPL Automobiles Agency (P)Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Ampa Manor, No.107/1 Nelson Manickam Road,
Amindakarai,
Chennai-600 029.
2. M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
Represented by its Aurhtorised Signatory,
Gateway Building,
Apollo Bunder, Mumbai 400 039.
3. M/s.Zulaikha Motors P Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
No.10/8(SP), 3rd Main Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Chennai 600 058.
4. M/s.T.V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons P Ltd.,
Rep by its Authorised Signatory,
No.141, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, (OMR)
Chennai 600 041.
……Respondent/Opposite party
Date of petition : 24.09.2018
Counsel for Petitioner/ Complainant : Mr.A.Thirumaran
Counsel for 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite party :M/s.Surana & Surana and
another
|
|
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,
This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant to receive the additional documents filed along with the petition and to mark the same on the complainant side.
1.The petitioner/complainant filed the main complaint to return a sum Rs.10,71,438/- towards the cost of the vehicle and or to provide a new vehicle and also claimed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony. The complaint was filed in year 2016. After filing of written version by the opposite party the present petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant on 24.09.2018 to receive seven documents as additional documents on the complainant side, by alleging that even after the filing of complaint the vehicle purchased by him was having manufacturing defects and the vehicle was experiencing problem and to prove the same, the repair order and repair invoice of the 4th Respondent and the letter given by the 4th respondent in the year 2017-18 along with other documents were filed to substantiate the complainants case that there is manufacturing defects in the vehicle.
2.The 2nd respondent/opposite party alone has filed counter. 1st respondent/opposite party endorsed no counter. 3rd & 4th respondent/opposite party has not filed counter.
3.In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent/opposite party it was contended that after filing written version by the 2nd respondent/opposite party. This application is filed with malafide intention to mislead the court and further contended that the repair order invoices and manual repair form has been filed belatedly to drag on the case.
4.This petition to receive the additional documents is filed by the petitioner/complainant along with seven documents in the year 2018. Already at the time of filling of complaint in 2016 the complainant has filed 22 documents and now this petition is filed when the matter is posted for filling proof affidavit of complainant. Till this date no documents were marked on both side. According to the petitioner/complainant these additional documents were necessary to prove his case and these documents were subsequent to the filling of the complaint. But, on the other hand the 2nd respondent/opposite party contended that these documents are filed at belated stage and the documents were not legible and clear and further it is filed to drag on the proceedings. Since, this petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant even prior to marking of documents on the complainant side and since these documents are subsequent to filling of complaint and the documents filed related to service provided to the complainant’s vehicle the above said documents are necessary to substantiate the case of the complaint. Therefore the petitioner must be given an opportunity to file those documents. But, since the documents were filed belatedly the petitioner/ complainant is directed to pay cost to the 2nd respondent/2nd opposite party.
Hence, this petition is ordered to be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- by the petitioner/complainant to the 2nd respondent/opposite party on or before 02.06.2022.Call on 03.06.2022.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by him corrected and pronounced by us on this 17th day of May 2022.
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
CMP.NO.109/2018 IN CC.188/2016 DATED:17.05.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED, In the result, this petition is ordered to be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) by the petitioner/complainant to the 2nd respondent/2nd opposite party on or before 02.06.2022. Call on 03.06.2022.
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
|
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.