SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. R C BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

(2.) VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had purchased a Maruti 800 Standard Car for a consideration of over Rs. 88,000 in June 1988 for his wife who was a handicapped person. It was the case of the complainant before the State Commission that the car developed problems from the very beginning, which were attended from time-to-time but he had not purchased this car for taking it to workshop with great regularity on almost eleven occasions between June 1988 and August 1989. When the car was not still performing up to the satisfaction of the complainant, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint only to the extent of awarding Rs. 25,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,500 as costs. Not satisfied with this relief this appeal has been filed before us, praying for replacement of car.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the complainant is still using the car and has run for over 60,000 kms. since the car is running and in the possession of the appellant/complainant, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission notwithstanding the fact that the complainant had to take the car for 11 times between the period referred to earlier.