A snippet from another consumer court case judgement - Expert commissioner further reported that “in this particular engine the vibration are felt in the entire RPM range and is transmitted through the foot rest to rider’s body. The vibration are also felt through the handle bar. This is due to the poor balancing of the flywheel (crank shaft)” The conclusion in Ext. C1 report is that “But comparing with the standard model (Bullet 350), the overall quality is very poor and is also expensive than the standard model”. The opposite party belatedly filed objection to the commission report. But the opposite party has not taken any steps to establish their objection. There is no reason to discard the findings of the expert commissioner in Ext. C1. In the absence of anything to the contrary we are of the view that the vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties are liable to replace the disputed vehicle with a new one. Evidently the vehicle was having defects rights from the beginning. Even though the complainant duly informed the opposite parties as per Ext. A4 letter but they did not take any steps to rectify defects or settle the dispute. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Naturally the complainant had to undergo mental agony and inconveniences. For complete judgement please visit confonet.nic.in and search for case # cc/10/252
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:12:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015