HARVINDER SINGH Vs. INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILES
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2010-9-7
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 01,2010

HARVINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
International Automobiles Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HARVINDER Singh appellant has purchased on 31.5.2002 for a sum of Rs. 2,80,000 Mahindra 475 Di from respondent No. 1 (in short "the respondents") who was the authorised dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra manufacturer respondent No. 2. Its model was told to be 2002. Respondent No. 1 had given Form Nos. 21 and 22 and temporary registration No. PB08 -W -TEMP -4704 to the appellant. These documents were given by the appellant in the office of the District Transport Officer, Faridkot for registration purposes. It was given RC No.PB04 -H -5629.
(2.) IT was further pleaded that the respondents represented to the appellant that the tractor was of best quality. They had also given guarantee for a period of 2 years against any defect. The appellant was also told that the consumption of fuel was much less than other tractors. After purchase, the tractor was being driven by the appellant as per the instructions/recommendations made by the respondents.
(3.) IT was further pleaded that the tractor was not running smoothly. It was having manufacturing defect It started giving trouble one or the other immediately after its purchase. Its tyres were looking old/defective at the time of its purchase. All these defects were brought to the notice of the respondents on which the appellant was told that the tractor required water service. It was further pleaded that the crown pinion of the tractor was giving very hard noise. The appellant went to the respondents with this complaint many times. The mechanic of the respondents tried to repair the same every time but they failed to rectify the defect. The appellant was told orally that there was a manufacturing defect and it could not be repaired/removed. The appellant had requested the respondents many times either to repair the tractor or to change the same but the respondents postponed the matter on one excuse or the other. The appellant was asked to wait as the respondents had written to respondent No.2.;


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