SULEKH CHAND Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
LAWS(HRCDRC)-2013-10-2
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 10,2013

SULEKH CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
Tata Motors Ltd. Through Its General Manager Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 526 & 685 of 2008 - M/s. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sulekh Chand & Ors. and M/s. Tata Motors v. Sulekh Chand & Ors. by which, while allowing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner purchased ICV 6 wheeler TATA LPT/1109/36 HI -Deck -Ex.II model from OP No. 2/Respondent No.2 authorized dealer of OP No. 1/ Respondent No.1 and paid Rs.1,15,248/ - and remaining price i.e. Rs.5,73,000/ - was got financed by the complainant. OP also provided printed brochure of the vehicle according to which, vehicle was having a maximum permissible gross weight of 11900 kgs. and a pay load of 8315 kgs. whereas its unladen weight was 3585 kgs. which was not as per brochure. Complainant approached OP for taking back the vehicle and refunding the amount, but OP did not refund money. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs contested complaint and submitted that complainant failed to repay loan instalments as per schedule and possession of the vehicle was taken by OP and vehicle has been re -sold to M/s. Giani Motor. Further, denying any deficiency, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs. 1,15,248/ - along with 10% p.a. interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/ - as cost. Appeals filed by the OPs were allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vehicle supplied by the respondents to the petitioner is not as per specifications in the brochure and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition is admitted.;


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