JUDGEMENT
M.THANIKACHALAM J. -
(1.) The 1st opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/1st respondent, had purchased an Ambassador car, by
name Avigo, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from its dealer, the
2nd opposite party, by paying a sum of Rs.5,96,172/-, on 23.8.2005, for
which the Registration number was obtained as TN-74 J-7452. At the time
of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite parties have assured about it
performance, and believing the same, since the complainants family
already owned and used Ambassador CarS, had purchased the vehicle.
(3.) The vehicle sold to the complainant, though new one was not upto the
mark, and the complainant had noticed deficiency in pulling power, crown
noise, door rattling, including sudden opening, head lights not
functioning properly, including defect in power steering etc. On
29.9.2005, the complainant explained the entire defects, and the 2nd
opposite party, though promised to rectify the same, attempted to
rectify, failed since defects were not repairable. The non-repairing and
continuous recurring of the defects, should be due to the manufacturing
defect, which defect occurred repeatedly. In fact, the 2nd opposite party
admitted the defects, when complained, seeking for replacement of the
vehicle, but failed/refused to take back the defective car, which should
be construed as unfair trade practice, as well as deficiency in service.
Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case, for the return of
the sale price viz. Rs.5,96172/-, with compensation of Rs.25000/-, with
cost.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.