Haryana

StateCommission

A/853/2017

RAVINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SKODA AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

BALKAR SINGH

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No. 853 of 2017

Date of Institution: 18.07.2017

                                                          Date of Decision: 31.08.2017

Ravinder Pal Singh S/o Sh.Bale Ram, R/o H.NO.2474, Ward NO.9, Rajender Nagar, Gohana Road, Rohtak.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1. The Manager, SDAK Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. G.T.road, Karnal.
2. Skoda Aut, A-1/1, MIDC, Fiuve Star Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad-431201.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Balkar Singh, Advocate counsel for appellant.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 As per complainant he purchased car from Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1 against the payment of Rs.16,00,000/- which was manufactured by O.P.No.2. This car started giving trouble since very beginning and was got repaired time and again from Giriraj Motors At Gurgaon.

2.      In reply it was alleged that the car had already covered 1,50,000 KMs and no manufacturing defect was ever detected.  Injectors etc. were removed which were requiring repair due to wear and tear.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 25.05.2017 and directed as under:-

“We accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite party NO.2 the manufacturer to pay 50% of the cost of the car to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      From the perusal of impugned order it is clear that complainant alleged engine problem after this vehicle covered 65000 KMs.  When it was brought to workshop on 20.02.2013 its wind-shield and rear bumper were damaged. Car met with an accident in the very beginning. There is no report on the file about manufacturing defect. So it cannot be ordered that the car may be replaced. The compensation awarded by Learned District Forum is well reasoned and does not require interference. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed in limine.

 

August 31st, , 2017	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench
S.K