CHARISMA GOLDWHEELS (P) LTD. Vs. B.K.ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these appeals have arisen out of the order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the District Forum, Shimla, in complaint No. 270/2004, as such these were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. While allowing the complaint, District Forum below has ordered as under : - 13. As a sequel of the above, we hereby allow this complaint and direct OPs jointly and severally to replace the defective vehicle with the new one of the same make/equivalent and model, which is functional and road worthy, within a period of forty -five days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to return of the defective vehicle to the OPs on receipt of the new vehicle. In case, OPs are not in a position to replace the defective vehicle with the new one as ordered supra, in that event they shall be liable to refund the cost price of Hyundai Santro car amounting to Rs. 3,76,289/ - alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 31.5.2004, till actual payment is made, subject to return of defective vehicle by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ as compensation to the complainant for rendering deficient service and causing mental harassment. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs. 3500/ - payable by OPs to the complainant. In case the OPs fail to comply with this order within the stipulated period, as ordered supra, in that event, they shall also be liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as punitive damages to the complainant. With these directions, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The file after due completion, and after supplying the copies of this order to the parties free of costs, be consigned to record room. Announced on this 25th day of July, 2006. -

(2.) APPEAL No. 331/2006 has been filed by the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and Appeal No. 302/2006 has been filed by its authorized dealer M/s. S. Charisma Goldwheels (P) Ltd. and both are being referred to hereinafter as ˜HMIL and ˜dealer respectively, whereas complainant who is respondent No. 1 in both the appeals is being referred to hereinafter as the ˜respondent.

(3.) A brand new Santro Car manufactured by HMIL having been sold by the dealer on 18.6.2003 for Rs. 3,76,289/ - to the respondent is not in dispute. It is admitted by HMIL that the dealer is authorized one for the sale of Santro Cars manufactured by it. Car being under warranty for 24 months irrespective of the number of kms. covered during this period is again not in dispute, as it was not a vehicle being used as taxi/tourist operations.