MANOHAR LAL Vs. RAJ MOTORS, AUTHORISED SELLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 725/2009, wherein the State Commission dismissed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, 'District Forum').

(2.) The relevant facts in brief about this revision are these. On 7.6.1995 the Complainant Manohar Lal paid Rs.102973/- to Raj Motors, the OP-1 for purchase of a tempo. He took delivery of the vehicle on 08.08.1995, with the guarantee certificate for replacement of vehicle and a provision for free service till 3 months or 6,000 kms. As per complainant, the said vehicle had gone out of order within 7 days of purchase and it was informed to the OP-1, but no step was taken for its repair or replacing the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant compelled to pay interest on loan and suffered loss of Rs.6,000/- income per month. The complainant approached the District Forum and prayed for a relief of new vehicle in lieu of old one or refund of Rs.1,02,973/- plus award for damages so occurred due to loss of employment and legal expenses.

(3.) The District Forum, Camp Jaipur allowed the complaint and ordered the OPs to repay Rs.1,02,973/- along with the interest @ 6%, in lieu of vehicle due to manufacturing defect in tempo and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards the legal expenses.