HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD Vs. USHARANI PARTHASARATHY
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2008-9-11
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 09,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.KANNADASAN, J. - (1.) Appellant is the 2nd opposite party, the 1st respondent is the complainant, 2nd respondent is the 1st opposite party before the District Forum.
(2.) The complaint is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances. The complainant purchased a Santro Car for a sum of Rs.2.95 lakhs from the opposite parties during November 1998. 1st opposite party is a dealer and the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. 2nd opposite party undertook the servicing of the car. 2nd opposite party also offered a warranty for a period of two years initially, which was later on extended by one more year. According to the complainant, ever since the date of purchase of vehicle, she has been noticing certain defects, which are promptly reported to the 2nd opposite party. Inspite of such reporting and the rectification being done by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant was forced to approach the 2nd opposite party repeatedly for very same defects. Within a short span of time, the complainant has to approach the 2nd opposite party to repair the car atleast for about 20 times. Finally, complainant was constrained to send lawyers notices, for which there was no response, even though on one occasion the 2nd opposite party deputed their mechanics to attend the vehicle, for which a bill had also been raised for a sum of Rs.7179/-. Under the said circumstances, the complainant approached the District Forum, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also to replace the vehicle.
(3.) The appellant/ 2nd opposite party resisted the complaint by contending that all the defects, which was rectified were arose out of normal wear and tear. Such minor repairs may occur in several cases, wherever the vehicle was not used properly by the owners/drivers of the vehicle. Whenever the complainant has approached the 2nd opposite party, prompt action was initiated and all the repairs were attended to and as such it cannot be pointed out that there is deficiency on their part and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.;


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