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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more