M/S Shimla Automobiles Pvt. Ltd & Anr. vs Bhagwan Dass Jassal & Anr. on 5 April, 2008
Mahindra
& Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Vasantrao Dagaji
Patil & Anr., III (2002)
CPJ 79 (NC);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Chandan Mondal & Ors. on 19 September, 2013
In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. versus Vasantrao
Dagaji Patil and Anr. [First Appeal No. 36 of 1996 decided on 24.05.2002],
it has been held that there was deficiency in service, because the new vehicle
was having defects.
Tata Motors Ltd vs Shailesh Kumar S/O Khemchand Jain, +1 on 10 March, 2014
iii. Mahindra
and Mahindra Vs. Vasantrao Dagaji Patil and another, III (2002)
CPJ 79 (NC). In that case the vehicle was with appellant /manufacturer and
its dealer for four months, which deprived the complainant for the use of
the vehicle. Therefore compensation was granted to the complainant.
The Maruti Wagonr Stingray Cars vs Sham Sunder And Ors. on 25 October, 2017
They have also
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission
reported as 2003(1) ALT 37 "Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. versus
Vasantrao Dagaji Patil and Anr.". In that case, vehicle gave
trouble to the complainant from the very start and Op did not give
the proper service to the complainant and in those circumstances,
it was ordered to be replaced.
1