MANISHA W/O AMIT KUMAR Vs. MEHTA MOTORS; TATA MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/petitioner purchased a Tata Manza vehicle from opposite party No.1 on 24-03-2010 for a consideration of Rs.6,17,994/-. The case of the complainant is that when she visited opposite party No.3 Goyal Motors, she was informed that some parts of the vehicle i.e. side rear view mirrors, back door pillars, boot and back bumpers were not new and had been repainted. She approached the dealer, M/s. Mehta Motors with a grievance that they had sold the old vehicle to him against price of a new vehicle and sought its replacement or refund of the price paid by her. According to the complainant the Manager of M/s. Mehta Motors admitted that the vehicle had been repainted and assured her that the matter would be taken up with higher ups. He, however, refused either to replace the vehicle or to refund the price which the complainant had paid for it. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) In its reply the seller of the vehicle which was impleaded as opposite party No.1 in the complaint denied the allegation made by the complainant and claimed that neither the vehicle had been repainted nor did it have any defect. Opposite party No.3 Goyal Motors also filed a reply denying the averments made in the complaint. It was stated in the reply that though the complainant had visited them for general checkup of the vehicle on 12-06-2010 and 04-12-2010, they did not tell her that certain parts of the vehicle had been repainted.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 09-12-2011 directed the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant but dismissed the complaint qua opposite party No.3.