Skip to main content

Dent in wheel costs vehicle maker Rs 50,000

Selling a car with manufacturing defect has cost Japanese car manufacturer Nissan Motors Rs 50,000. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) slapped the multinational company with the fine for deficiency in service.

In her submissions to the forum, M Monika Darshini of Kilpauk said she purchased a Nissan Sunny car (model XVD) in August 2012. She found the front left wheel often had reduced air pressure leading to frequent flat tyres. The authorized service centre in the city, Jain Jubilant Cars, inspected the car and said the low air pressure was due to a dent in the alloy wheel.

In December 2012, the car was sent to the service centre but was returned without rectifying the defect. After she approached the customer relationship manager, he promised to address the problem and the car was again sent to the service centre. But the dealer demanded `9,000 as repair charges claiming that the dent was a result of a collision. "I was forced to pay Rs 8,986," said Darshini.

She then moved the forum seeking compensation of Rs 5 lakh for mental agony along with reimbursement of the amount paid for repairs. Refuting the arguments, Nissan Motors said the damage had occurred after an accident.

The bench of president P Jayabalan and members L Deenadayalan and K Amala said after considering the service records of the car it was clear that rather than an accident, the car had an inherent manufacturing defect. Accident was ruled out as there was no damage to the tyres nor were there any other visible signs of a collision, said the bench.

However, the bench said the compensation claim of Rs 5 lakh was on the higher side and fixed the compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service as Rs 50,000. It then directed Nissan Motors and Jain Jubilant Cars to jointly pay the compensation and also return Rs 8,986 along with 10% interest from December 2012.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Chennai/Dent-in-wheel-costs-vehicle-maker-Rs-50000/articleshow/35960777.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more