Decided on June 24,2020

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India P. Ltd. Appellant
Meghana Corporates P. Limited Respondents


Deepa Sharma, J. - (1.) The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.2161 of 2011 whereby the order dated 07.06.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (for short "the District Forum") in CC/591/2012 was confirmed and the Appeal was dismissed.
(2.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.2 in the original complaint, alleging that the order of the Foras below needs to be set aside as it suffers with illegality and infirmity. It is submitted that the Foras below have failed to take into account the fact that there was no expert opinion regarding the defect in the car and therefore, the finding that the car was defective is erroneous. Reliance has been placed on "Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Hasmukh Laxmichand & Anr.,2009 SCCOnlineNCDRC 74", "Gopal Aggarwal vs. Metro Motors & Anr.,2019 SCCOnlineNCDRC 754", "Amar Kumar Saraswat vs. Volkswagen Group Sales India P. Ltd. & Anr., RP 567/2017 dated 18.03.2020, NCDRC", "Hyundai Motor India Limited vs. Surbhi Gupta & Others,2014 SCCOnlineNCDRC 487", "Classic Automobiles vs. Laila Nand Mishra & Anr., 2010 1 CPJ 235 (NC)", "S. Suncon Realtors P. Ltd. Vs. Nissan & Ors., FA 1744/2019 dated 20.08.2019 (NCDRCDC)", "Md. Hasan Khalid vs. General motors India P. Limited,2018 SCCOnlineNCDRC 667", "Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 644" and "Easy Elevators India P. Ltd. Vs. Nissan Motors & Anr.,2018 SCCOnlineNCDRC 1430".
(3.) It is further argued that the Respondent no.1, the Complainant is a Company and since the Company has purchased this car, it cannot be said that it had been purchased for personal use and therefore, the Complainant is not a Consumer. It is further argued that every time when the car had been brought to the service station, i.e., to Respondent no.2, the car was repaired and the Complainant had signed a satisfaction note. It is further argued that since all the documents had been produced by the Complainant, there was no requirement on the part of the Petitioner to produce any document and hence, the Foras below have erred in giving the findings against the Petitioner simply on the basis that the Petitioner did not produce any evidence. It is further argued that the vehicle had already run for more than 58,000 kms. by the date the Complaint was filed and it is still roadworthy and therefore, the finding that the vehicle had suffered with manufacturing defect is erroneous. It is further argued that the District Forum has erroneously relied upon an internet download. It is argued that the impugned order whereby the order of the District Forum was upheld needs to be set aside.;

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