Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. vs Vaman S. Gaitonde & Another on 6 August, 2024 cites

Maruti Udyog Limited vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand on 26 May, 2009

6. Also no manufacturing defects are evident or established then how can deficiency be pointed at the Appellant and Respondent-2. It is also settled position in law as held in Maruti Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand, III (2009) CPJ229 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has clearly defined manufacturing defect as a defect as a result of which the vehicle cannot function and result in a complete and total breakdown and hence the Appellant herein cannot be held liable in absence of any manufacturing defect.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

M/S Tata Motors Ltd., vs Sharad & Anr. on 19 May, 2016

He placed reliance on Tata Motors Ltd Vs. Sharad and Ors. in Revision Petition No. 2340 of 2009 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission in paragraphs 19 and 20 and specifically in paragraph 21, wherein the vehicle had run about 35000 km in the first year and as per admission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent during arguments, had run more than 90,000 km. Obviously, no case is made out for replacement of the vehicle at this stage. Had there been any serious manufacturing defect, it would not have been possible to run the vehicle for so many kilometers.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd vs Intercard (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2013

ix. That in terms of deficiency in service misrepresentation and cheating on part of the Respondent-2 and the District Commission, North has failed to appreciate that Respondent-2 is an authorized dealer of the Appellant and not its agent and that the Hon'ble State Commission in Intercard (India) ltd. Vs. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Anr. (R.P.C No. 599 of 2015) upheld the Order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Intercard India Ltd (First Appeal No. 100 of 2009) where it was conclusively held that the authorized dealers 4 are not the agent or distributor of the manufacturer and it was further held that the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer was on principal-to-principal basis and the manufacturer could not be held liable for the misrepresentation if any, made by the authorized dealer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Omkar Gupta vs Tvs Motor Company Limited & Others on 14 March, 2023

In terms of the kilometres run as per the records we in our considered opinion find that the complainant is not entitled to receive a replacement of the vehicle and the Advocate for the Appellant placed reliance on this Shri. Omkar Gupta Vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd and Anr of this very State Commission. Also the Complainant ought to have made attempts to contact the service centre after he had last given the said vehicle but no such attempt was made.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1