Skip to main content

Woman finds dent on car year after purchase, Honda, dealer to pay Rs. 30,000

Terming it guilty of deficiency in services, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed a car manufacturer and dealer to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation to a Sector-30 resident.

Kamla Devi had approached the consumer forum against Honda Siel Cars India Limited and its dealer Lally Automobiles Pvt Ltd (Prestige Honda), Industrial Area. Phase 1, Chandigarh.

Kamla submitted that she purchased a Honda City car in May 2010. She said after over a year of purchase, she noticed a dent on the vehicle, even though the car had never met with an accident, which could only mean that a used vehicle was sold to her.

Denying Kamla's allegations, the car manufacturer and its dealer claimed that the dent could have occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the complainant herself.

After hearing the arguments, consumer forum held, “Even though the allegations of the complainant are not really proved, her anxiety on realising the dent in the vehicle, even though there is no hindrance to the running of the vehicle, cannot be overlooked. In the given situation, though we cannot pass orders to replace the vehicle or refund the price, we deem it appropriate to allow this complaint only to order the manufacturer and dealer to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs. 30,000."

"As it is not proved whether the dent is on account of the manufacturer or by the dealer, the amount will be shared equally by them. They would also pay `10,000 towards costs of litigation, which will also be shared equally by them,” it added.

 Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/woman-finds-dent-on-car-year-after-purchase-honda-dealer-to-pay-rs-30-000/article1-1251324.aspx

 Comment: This would easily be one of the strangest orders I have come across.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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