AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This revision petition is filed against the impugned order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission) dismissing the appeal against the order dated 02.07.2014 in CC no.201 of 2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Forum III, (West) Janakpuri, Delhi (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The order of the District Forum was passed in the presence of the complainant and reads as under:
“Both the parties were equally responsible for the miseries suffered by them. Now after hearing the parties we have come to the conclusion that when OP is ready to accept both the options given by the complainant nothing remains to be tried in this complaint. Under the buy back scheme OP was obliged to pay only 60% of the ex-showroom price of the car minus VAT. The complainant has wrongly claimed that buy back offer was on full price of the car. Reliance is placed on condition no.2 of the agreement filed by the complainant himself. The complainant can avail buy back option at any time within 36 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant has wrongly stated that OP was not ready to repair the vehicle free of cost. The complainant is now willing to take the delivery of the vehicle after its repair free of charges and a request is made that warranty of the vehicle be extended for the period for which it remained at the service centre.
Considering entire facts and circumstances we hereby order that OP shall handover the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant within one week after doing all the necessary repairs, washing, servicing and change of batteries and its warranty shall be extended for the period for which the vehicle remained at the service centre of the OP. Under the circumstances no order as to compensation. Complainant is awarded litigation expenses of Rs.2100/-.
OP shall comply with the above-mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings under section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act may be initiated against them”.
The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that:
“the appellant is only eligible for 60% amount of the vehicle and not 100% as per the terms and conditions of the said policy. Further, the District Commission was right in its observations that the appellant/ complainant can get the car repaired free of cost and get the extended warranty of the said car from the period it remained in the service centre. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant holds no merits.
Consequently, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Therefore, we uphold the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the District forum (West) Janakpuri, New Delhi.”
I therefore, find no reasons to entertain this petition which is dismissed at the admission stage.