Maruti Udyog Limited vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand on 26 May, 2009
1. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC). It has been held that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)K.K. Som vs The New India Assurance Co. Limited on 21 April, 2014
2. Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs. Surbhi Gupta, 2014, RP No.2854 of 2014, 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 487. It has been held that:
Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors. on 7 May, 2010
6. Sushil Automobiles P Limited Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors.,III (2010) CPJ 130 (NC). It has been held that:
C.N.Anantharam vs M/S Fiat India Ltd.& Ors.Etc.Etc on 24 November, 2010
7. It was argued by the learned counsel that trial forum i.e. the District Forum has not found any manufacturing defects in the vehicle and the District Forum has commended the services given and prompt repairs done by the petitioners. The petitioners had already paid the amount ordered by the District Forum to the complainant. It was argued that the State Commission has wrongly recorded certain facts e.g. the State Commission has recorded that the vehicle was still with the workshop/garage, whereas the vehicle was handed over to the complainant in the year 2012 itself. Learned counsel stated that the State Commission has based its judgment on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.N. Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Limited and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 460. In this judgment the vehicle had run 800 kms, whereas in the present case vehicle has run about 1,38,435 kms.
M/S. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. vs M/S. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. on 29 November, 2007
15. So far as the question of replacement of new car, which has already run for long year is concerned in first case by the learned counsel in Hyundai Motors India Ltd.(supra) the vehicle has travelled for only one year whereas in the present case the vehicle has run more than 13 years.
Dr. P. C. Sunil vs Tata Engineering & Locomative Co. Ltd. & ... on 8 March, 2016
4. P.C.Sunil (Dr.) Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomative Co. Ltd. & Anr., III (2016) CPJ 236 (NC). It has been held that:-
Mohini Wheat Product vs Nalanda Agro Work And Ors. on 31 October, 2007
It is true that if there are frequent failures in the vehicle there is certain deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and this contention of the learned counsel supported by the order of this Commission in Mohini Wheat Products (supra) is being given due consideration in deciding the present revision petition.
Satish Kumar Pal vs State Of U.P. on 21 July, 2010
In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on Satish Kumar Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 4 AW C3596 ALL wherein the following has been observed:-
1