Mr. Arfeen Khan S/O. Mozaffar Khan, Andheri (W), Mumbai Vs. Auto Hanger (Area) Pvt. Ltd., Prabhadevi, Mumbai and Another - Court Judgment |
| Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai |
| Jul-09-2009 |
| Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2009 |
| Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honâble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honâble Member |
| Mr. Arfeen Khan S/O. Mozaffar Khan, Andheri (W), Mumbai |
| Auto Hanger (Area) Pvt. Ltd., Prabhadevi, Mumbai and Another |
| Mr. Ajay Mishra, Adv. h/f. Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Adv. for the Complainant. |
oral order:- per shri s.r. khanzode, honble presiding judicial member we heard mr. ajay mishra, advocate h/f. mr. a.m. saraogi, advocate for the complainant. perused the record. this consumer complaint is filed with a claim of rs.99 lakhs on the ground that mercedes benz vehicle purchased by the complainant which met with an accident when his wife was driving, had a manufacturing defect. the only summarization about manufacturing defect is that at the time of accident, safety device of air bags though came out were not inflated sufficiently. there is no other evidence produced on record to substantiate that the vehicle really has any manufacturing defect. accident may be unfortunate, but certainly the complainant is not an expert to testify about manufacturing defect in the vehicle. his summarization since not based on any technical experts report or any valid ground, we find that the complainant failed to show any cause of action based upon manufacturing defect in the vehicle. there exists no consumer dispute. we hold accordingly and pass the following order:- order: 1. complaint stands rejected. 2. no order as to costs. 3 copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Oral Order:-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
We heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the complainant. Perused the record.
This consumer complaint is filed with a claim of Rs.99 Lakhs on the ground that Mercedes Benz vehicle purchased by the complainant which met with an accident when his wife was driving, had a manufacturing defect. The only summarization about manufacturing defect is that at the time of accident, safety device of air bags though came out were not inflated sufficiently. There is no other evidence produced on record to substantiate that the vehicle really has any manufacturing defect. Accident may be unfortunate, but certainly the complainant is not an expert to testify about manufacturing defect in the vehicle. His summarization since not based on any technical experts report or any valid ground, we find that the complainant failed to show any cause of action based upon manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There exists no consumer dispute. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
Order:
1. Complaint stands rejected.
2. No order as to costs.
3 Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.