Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)
Pawan Gupta vs T&T; Motors & Anr. on 4 April, 2016 cites

Indochem Electronic & Anr vs Addl. Collector Of Customs, A.P on 24 February, 2006

8. Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant argued that Complainant had a bad experience with the product supplied by OP-1 and manufactured by OP-2 which was of sub standard quality having defective parts which required replacement, repair within few days of its purchase from time to time. He also mentioned about the poor after sale services on the part of OP No-1 besides unfair trade practices on the part of OPs. LD Counsel cited Apex court judgment in Indochem Electronic vs. Addl. Collector of Customs (2006) 3 SCC 721], wherein it was held that when the deficiencies in the system continued to persist during the warranty period, including the extended period, the suppliers were rightly held to be liable for deficiency in service by the State and National Commission. It was also held that in the light of the specific power conferred under Section 14(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act, damages equivalent to price of goods could be awarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - S B Sinha - Full Document

General Motors (I) Private Limited vs Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & Anr on 9 October, 2014

LD Counsel for the complainant also relied upon the judgment of the Apex court in General Motors (India) Pvt Ltd vs Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & others [Civil Appeal Nos. 8072-8073 of 2009] wherein the Apex court affirmed the concurrent findings recorded by District forum, the State Commission and National Commission to the effect that unfair trade practice was committed by the appellant who gave quite a rosy picture of its product which was subsequently found to be incorrect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 88 - A K Goel - Full Document

M/S. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. vs M/S. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. on 29 November, 2007

24. Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.958 of 2007 decided on 29th November, 2007 in a case titled as M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. 15 Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd., where car had gone to the workshop on several occasions for repairs within a short period of one year of its purchase for one defect or other or for similar problem and the car all throughout was emitting smoke which defect could not be rectified by the manufacture of the dealer had held that "with such a vehicle the consumer would not be satisfied. May be that such defect may occur in one of thousand vehicles, but, at the same time, it is the duty of the reputed / established manufacturer to replace such a vehicle".
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1   2 Next