MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Vs. MAHESH SUKHTHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 14 -8 -1995 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. 7 of 1994.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the Complainant had purchased a jeep, Armada, manufactured by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra, on 1 -6 -1993 for Rs. 2,67,997/ - for his family use. It is his say that the jeep was defective from the date of its purchase. In response to his letter dated 18 -6 -1994, one Mr. Godrej had attend to the vehicle on 13 -6 -1994. The Complainant further says that some parts were replaced twice or thrice. When there was no improvement in the functioning of the Jeep, he filed a complaint before the State Commission, Goa, for a direction to the manufacturer for refund of the price of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., or in the alternative replacement of the old vehicle with a new one, Rs. 2,50,000/ - towards compensation and a direction to the dealer, Opposite Party No. 5, to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for his failure to give proper service.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, the State Commission appointed Mr. M.P. Vernekar, Charted Engineer, as Commissioner, to inspect the vehicle and submit his report. The Commissioner examined the vehicle on 30 -3 -1995 and found the following defects: