JOSE PHILIP MAMPILLIL Vs. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed by a party-in-person, against the Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 7th December, 2000.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

(3.) The Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum claiming that there should be an order directing the Respondent to take back the car and to replace it with a brand new defectless car or to refund the total value with 24% interest thereon. He also claimed compensation for hardship and mental agony and for costs. The District Forum appointed a Commissioner to inspect the car. The Inspection was done in the presence of the 2nd Respondent. The Commissioner notes that the notice had been given to the 1st Respondent. However, nobody from 1st Respondent remained present presumably because their agent was present. The Commissioner in his report has set out that a large number of defects were found in the car. The District Forum acting on this report directed repair of the car free of cost and replacement of the engine.