Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2023) 12 NCDRC CK 0091

Vasan Automotive Ltd. & Anr vs Subhash Rajaram Vande

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 19 December 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Revision Petition No. 1512 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 344 words

Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member

Heard the learned Counsel for both the Parties.

This is regarding a bus purchased by the Respondent / Complainant, who had to take the bus for repairs a number of times to the Petitioners / Opposite Parties, resulting in loss of livelihood of the Respondent / Complainant. Though the problems are not of any major manufacturing defects, but, nonetheless, there were certain defects, for which the Complainant had to take the bus for repairs.

Both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola, Maharashtra and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur have allowed the Complaint. The Petitioners have come before this Commission seeking setting aside the Order of the State Commission. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners later submitted reduction in the compensation which was directed to be paid by the State Commission.

The District Commission had directed the Petitioners / Opposite Parties to provide a new school bus to the Complainant, however, the State Commission modified the Order of the District Commission by directing a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent.

The matter is very simple. It is only a question of recurring defects taking place in the bus, which resulted in the same being taken to the workshop of the Petitioners and due to which the Complainant would be suffering an obvious loss for the number of days in the workshop. To this extent, there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioners. No new question of fact or law has been forthwith by the Petitioners.

I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the Order of the State Commission and, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the same. The Order of the State Commission is upheld, except for reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 1.5 lakh and the rate of interest to 8% p.a. Rest of the Order of the State Commission remains as they are.

The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.