KAMALJIT SINGH Vs. BROADWAY AUTO ENGINEERS AND ORS
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-7-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 10,2014

KAMALJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Broadway Auto Engineers And Ors Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 05.05.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
(2.)THE facts, in brief are that a representative of Opposite Party No.1, allured the complainant, to purchase one Force SUV, on the pretext that, it had engine of Mercedes, which could never breakdown during journey. On such allurement, the complainant purchased the said vehicle, on 01.02.2012, for which, he paid a sum of Rs.11,00,738/ -, as price. An amount of Rs.1,07,445/ -, on account of road tax and insurance, in respect of the said vehicle, was also paid by the complainant. It was stated that, at the time of delivery of the said vehicle, Opposite Party No.1, handed over two keys of the same, to the complainant. It was further stated that, since one of the keys was found broken, the complainant brought the same, to the notice of Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was assured that the broken key would be replaced, with a new one, within a week. It was further stated that, from the very beginning, the said vehicle started giving various troubles, time and again. It was further stated that the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1, for rectification of defects in the said vehicle, time and again.
(3.)ON 02.02.2012, the complainant went to the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1, to get his vehicle repaired, as he noticed an extra gap, in its rear right hand side door, defective auto -cut of the indicators, and for the replacement of rear vendor cover mat. It was further stated that, on 09.03.2012, again the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1, as the vehicle encountered various defects, such as engine missing, bubbling on road while driving, and the meter cluster started showing wrong signals and defective reading.
On 23.06.2012, the complainant had to visit Opposite Party No.1, again with various troubles in the vehicle, such as defects in the cluster meter, engine stopping/missing more frequently, bubbling problem, key of the vehicle stopped working and the average of fuel consumption remained between 6 -8 kms/ltr., instead of the claimed average of 15 kms. per ltr., rear vents of the AC were not working properly, as a result whereof, cooling in the same was negligible and the reverse fuel indicator was also not working properly. It was further stated that, however, Opposite Party No.1, failed to rectify the defects aforesaid, properly.



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