Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
Sharda Vinod Bhatia vs Tata Motors Limited & Anr. on 23 April, 2024 cites

Synco Industries vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur And Ors on 15 January, 2002

12.    On the contrary, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/OP-1 reiterated the contents of the reply filed before both the fora and asserted that the present petition is not maintainable. The facts alleged in the complaint involve complicated questions of fact and law that require a detailed inquiry and leading of evidence in a civil court rather than the consumer forum and cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2002) 2 SCC 1, and TRAI Food Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. (2004) 13 SCC 656. He further argued that despite obtaining an order for showing the vehicle to ARAI for expert opinion, she failed to comply with the same as a favorable report was unlikely. Additionally, she refused to allow inspection of the car by the OPs, hindering the rectification of alleged problems. The Counsel emphasized that the vehicle had run for more than 25,652 KM in two years, which rules out the possibility of any manufacturing defect. He further asserted that similar edition of the vehicle in question has been used by several customers since 2002 without any complaints. Moreover, the vehicle in question underwent a pre-delivery inspection (PDI) and was approved by ARAI before release. Thus, her motive behind the present RP is malicious, to prolong the litigation and harass the OP. No manufacturing defect was proved by her, in the absence of expert report. The State Commission exonerated payment of Rs.5,16,893/- as vehicle cost. He sought the order to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for physical injury, Rs.50,000/- towards mental pain and agony, and Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation be set aside and cited following judgments:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 104 - Full Document
1