Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
M/S. Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Ronald 'D' Silva & Anr. on 14 July, 2023 cites

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.Tractor ... vs Nandlal & 3 Ors. on 11 March, 2019

20.    Admittedly, the general accepted position in law is that onus to prove the manufacturing defect by way of inspection by an Expert would lie upon the Complainant's side.  But this cannot be a water tight proposition in all cases, as has been seen in the decision of this Commission in "Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.  Vs. Nandlal and Ors." (supra) where it was held that the Complainants had proved that their tractor had a manufacturing defect, while the Appellants in spite of having a team of experts did not examine the tractor in the presence of the Complainants.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd . on 8 September, 2022

13.    Similarly, in "Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1185, decided on September 8, 2022"; after this Commission had reversed the concurrent decisions of both the District Forum as well as the State Commission which had found that the disputed vehicle (a car in the said case) was a used one, was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decisions of both the lower Fora were reversed.  The relevant observations of the Apex Court in this regard were set out as below -
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - M R Shah - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr on 29 March, 2006

18.    Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 644, decided on March 29, 2006"; has been relied upon to emphasize that in case of any problem arising in any vehicle, the obligation upon the Manufacturer in terms of the concerned Warranty would be limited to the extent of repair/replacement of any defective parts in the same, and not the replacement of the vehicle entirely.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 162 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Limited vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand on 26 May, 2009

19.    The Petitioners have emphatically contended that the onus of proving the manufacturing defects in the vehicle in a case, would lie on the Complainant himself who would be required to prove his contention by way of inspection of the vehicle by any Expert, and in this regard reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of this Commission in "Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anr.,, (2009) 3CPJ 229 (NC), decided on May 26, 2009"; Baljit Kaur Vs. Divine Motors and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 212, decided on June 8, 2017; and "Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and Ors., (2010) 3 CPJ 130 (NC), decided on May 7, 2010";
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors. on 7 May, 2010

19.    The Petitioners have emphatically contended that the onus of proving the manufacturing defects in the vehicle in a case, would lie on the Complainant himself who would be required to prove his contention by way of inspection of the vehicle by any Expert, and in this regard reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of this Commission in "Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anr.,, (2009) 3CPJ 229 (NC), decided on May 26, 2009"; Baljit Kaur Vs. Divine Motors and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 212, decided on June 8, 2017; and "Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and Ors., (2010) 3 CPJ 130 (NC), decided on May 7, 2010";
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Baljit Kaur vs M/S. Divine Motors & Anr. on 8 June, 2017

19.    The Petitioners have emphatically contended that the onus of proving the manufacturing defects in the vehicle in a case, would lie on the Complainant himself who would be required to prove his contention by way of inspection of the vehicle by any Expert, and in this regard reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of this Commission in "Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anr.,, (2009) 3CPJ 229 (NC), decided on May 26, 2009"; Baljit Kaur Vs. Divine Motors and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 212, decided on June 8, 2017; and "Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and Ors., (2010) 3 CPJ 130 (NC), decided on May 7, 2010";
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1