NINGAPPA HANAMANPPA KADOR Vs. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the Complainant before the District Forum. Hindustan Motors Ltd.- manufacturer was opposite party No. 2, S.M.Mirjankar & Sons - dealer of opposite party No.2 was opposite party No. 1 and PCA and RD Bank was opposite party No. 3, respectively before the District Forum.

(2.) Petitioner purchased a passenger vehicle from M/s. S.M. Mirjankar & Sons - Dealer, opposite party No. 1, manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., opposite party No. 2 for earning his livelihood. The vehicle was financed by PCA and RD Bank, opposite party No. 3. The grievance of Petitioner was that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle such as (i) tyres of the vehicle were worn out within 2 months of the purchase, (ii) vehicle was not giving good average, i.e., consuming lot of fuel (iii) emitting lot of smoke, and (iv) passengers were complaining about the discomfort while travelling in the vehicle. Since the defects in the vehicle could not be rectified by the dealer and the manufacturer, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer and the manufacturer to pay to the Complainant Rs. 3,80,000 jointly and severally with interest at the same rate as was charged by the opposite party No. 3-Bank on the loan sanctioned to the complainant, within two months. Rs. 500 was awarded by way of cost.