LAWS(NCD)-2002-5-77

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD Vs. VASANTRAO DAGAJI PATIL

Decided On May 24, 2002
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. Appellant
V/S
VASANTRAO DAGAJI PATIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal which has not been explained. In fact, there is no prayer seeking condonation of delay. No application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. On merit also we do not find appellant has any case.

(2.) Complainant-respondent No. 1 herein purchased a jeep manufactured by the appellant through its dealer-respondent No. 2 herein. vehicle gave trouble to the complainant from the very start. It would be interesting to reproduce the letter of the appellant dated 10.9.1991 which finds mention in the impugned order of the State Commission. It reads as under :

(3.) There is a clear admission on the part of the appellant that the vehicle was defective. It was new vehicle which had all these defects and for removal of the defects vehicle was kept for four months by the appellant and the dealer for removal of the defects. It is not difficult to imagine the agony of the consumer who buys a new jeep and has to undergo all these troubles.