ALPHA G CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AUDI GURGAON SHOW ROOM
LAWS(HRCDRC)-2013-7-1
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 23,2013

Alpha G Corp Development Private Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Audi Gurgaon Show Room Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ALLEGING deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party for supplying/selling a car having manufacturing defect, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the prayer that the opposite party be directed to replace the car in question with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs to the complainant company on account of harassment and causing mental agony and pain.
(2.) COMPLAINANT Company had purchased a car 'AUDI MODEL 6' bearing Registration No. HR -26 -P -0012 from the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that on 15.9.2011 when the said car was transiting the CEO of the complainant Company along with his daughter from their residence to the Corporate Office, it was raining and the driver of the car was driving the car on the right end of the left side of the road, since the extreme left end on the left side of the road was logged with water. Number of heavy vehicles suddenly overtook the car from the left side of complainant's car at a high speed, the logged water started entering the car and the engine. Since the level of the water started rising inside the car, the electronic system of the car started malfunctioning. The front passenger seat automatically moved forward and got jammed against the dash board. The CEO of the complainant company along with his daughter and the driver immediately came out of the car, apprehending that the doors of the car may get jammed and that they may get trapped in the car. To the surprising and shocking of the complainant, the water had been able to enter the sealed car, apparently owing to some manufacturing defect in the car.
(3.) THE complainant informed the opposite party and the vehicle was towed away to the workshop of the opposite party for repair. It is the case of the complainant that as per the understanding between the parties, the opposite .party was supposed to provide a replacement car to the complainant company for its use during the time of repair but nothing was done by the opposite party till 22nd of September, 2011 and that the same was however taken away by the opposite party on 25thNovember, 2011 even when the car of the complainant was with the opposite party for repairs. The opposite party gave the delivery of the car to the complainant company on 7th January, 2012 but the complainant observed that the seat controls of the car were not functioning. The whole inner body of the car needed a dry cleaning and that there was a noise in the wheels at the time of the stopping of the car. Complainant produced the bills with respect to the payments made to opposite party for repairs as Annexure C -3 to Annexure C -8.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.