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

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...

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...

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...