Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing R.Raja Rao, Mr. Arvind Kamath vs M/S. Mysore Auto Agencies & Anr. Mr. ... on 27 February, 2006

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. & Anr. on 7 February, 2013

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Complainant denied that there was any ulterior motive in his making the complaint before the State Commission. The job cards showing the number of times that the vehicle needed to be repaired was a clear indication that there were manufacturing defects right from the beginning and it was because of this reason that the warranty period was also extended. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Complainant cited a judgment of this Commission in R. Raja Rao v. Mysore Auto Agencies & Anr. [2006 CTJ 558 (CP) (NCDRC)] in support of his contention, wherein it had been held that if a consumer of a new motor vehicle is forced to hand it over to the dealer/manufacturer on the ground that it is to be repaired every now and then within a few months of its purchase, it cannot be said that he is to be deprived of refund of the amount paid as purchase consideration. The State Commission being the first court of fact after carefully considering the evidence before it had rightly concluded that there was manufacturing defect in the car and directed both the Appellants to redress the grievance of the Respondent-Complainant by directing them to refund 80% of the price of the car that the Respondent-Complainant had paid.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

The Managing Director M/S Sona Auto ... vs Sisirendra Nath Banerjee on 29 January, 2009

5. In our view, however, a consumer in a comparatively smaller town like Siliguri is unlikely to make an allegation of manufacturing defect unless he had good grounds to so suspect, particularly when the problems remained unresolved even after several rounds of servicing, etc., by both the dealer and the manufacturer (the latter, at least once, as admitted). Moreover, as noted by the State Commission, the two-wheeler had done just about 300 km of running after nearly ten months of its purchase and the vehicle was still within the warranty period of one year. If repeated servicing and repairs turned out to be unsuccessful in resolving the problems encountered by the consumer complainant, it would point to some serious defect, if not a manufacturing defect per se in the strict sense of the term. We find a parallel between this case and the case of R. Raja Rao versus Mysore Auto Agencies and Anr. [2006 CTJ 558 (CP) (NCDRC)], which was decided by a Bench headed by the then President of this Commission in favour of the complainant in appeal in the latter case also the vehicle was returned to the dealer after a few months of its purchase because repairs, etc. carried out to the vehicle did not resolve the problems faced by the purchaser (though in that case, the dealer had the vehicle repaired extensively after it was left with the former and also ran it for quite sometime). We also notice that one of the main grounds of the dealer in this revision petition is that it was the manufacturer (respondent no.2 here) who should have been held responsible by the State Commission. The dealer has, however, not produced before any Forum a copy of its agreement with the manufacturer to show the extent of mutual liability in such a situation or whether it was a principal-to-principal agreement, as is the situation in several cases of automobile dealerships. Nor has the manufacturer clarified the position at any stage. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the findings and order of the State Commission in this case.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. vs G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. & Anr. on 7 February, 2013

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Complainant denied that there was any ulterior motive in his making the complaint before the State Commission. The job cards showing the number of times that the vehicle needed to be repaired was a clear indication that there were manufacturing defects right from the beginning and it was because of this reason that the warranty period was also extended. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Complainant cited a judgment of this Commission in R. Raja Rao v. Mysore Auto Agencies & Anr. [2006 CTJ 558 (CP) (NCDRC)] in support of his contention, wherein it had been held that if a consumer of a new motor vehicle is forced to hand it over to the dealer/manufacturer on the ground that it is to be repaired every now and then within a few months of its purchase, it cannot be said that he is to be deprived of refund of the amount paid as purchase consideration. The State Commission being the first court of fact after carefully considering the evidence before it had rightly concluded that there was manufacturing defect in the car and directed both the Appellants to redress the grievance of the Respondent-Complainant by directing them to refund 80% of the price of the car that the Respondent-Complainant had paid.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Raj Bala vs Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. on 26 September, 2012

The Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on R.Raja Rao vs Mysore Auto Agencies and Anr. II(2006) CPJ 64(NC) wherein it was held that if the trouble started within few days of the purchase of the vehicle and proceeds even after several repairs, the dealer and the manufacturer jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1