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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
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