MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED Vs. RANVIJAY SINGH
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
MR.RAGHUNATH PRASAD, J. -
(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 7.8.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Rai Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 208/2000 directing both the appellants, jointly and severally, either to pay a sum of Rs. 3,81,000 to the complainant or to supply a vehicle of the same value. Since the issues involved are similar and both the appeals arise out of a common complaint and against a common judgment and, otherwise too, both the appeals can be decided together, it is deemed appropriate to decide both the appeals together by an instant common judgment. The original judgment shall form part of the record of leading Appeal No. 1934/SC/2004 and its certified copy shall be placed on the record of Appeal No. 2250/SC/2004.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Kashi Nath Shukla, learned Counsel for the Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Mr. A K Mishra, learned Counsel for the Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited and Mrs. Nalini Jain duly supported by Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
(3.) MR . Shukla argued that Mahindra and Mahindra Limited has no concern whatsoever with Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited. The Mahindra and Mahindra Limited is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling utility vehicles, light commercial vehicles as also auto parts and accessories thereof and M/s. Narayan Automobiles, respondent No. 2 is the authorized dealer of the appellant, whereas Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited is a separate and independent Company engaged in the business of providing financial assistance for purchasing vehicles on hire purchase basis.
The case of the complainant was challenged by Mahindra and Mahindra Limited on the ground that the vehicle in question has no manufacturing defect and for the first time on 25.8.1999 when the complainant reported the problem in the engine of the vehicle, which was observed only blow -by of gas, the same was attended by the dealer as per the company's warranty policy by replacing the affected parts and there was no damage to the engine. The said vehicle too was collected after road trial on 10.9.1999 after paying Rs. 1,300 against the parts replacement by the dealer in complainant's vehicle. Thus, the contrary judgment was said to be not sustainable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.