The petitioner submitted that at the time the respondent sent the damaged car for repairs to one of the dealers, the company had ceased to play any role in servicing the vehicle.
The plea said that the District Commission in its order had categorically held that from the pleadings on record there was no evidence, expert opinion or conclusive finding that there was any inherent manufacturing defect in the Car.
Nevertheless, the District Commission held the petitioner liable for repairs even though the complainant never approached the petitioner for any repairs/defects, the plea said.
The same was upheld by State and National Commission.
The petitioner contended that the the NCDRC erroneously held that if any manufacturing defect has occurred, then it was liable to be repaired free of cost by the Petitioner, without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.
The following questions of law were inter alia raised by the petitioner:
– Whether the Hon’ble National Commission was justified in coming to a conclusion that the Petitioner is liable to repair the manufacturing defect when the District Commission in its order has held that on perusal of documents on record there is no inherent manufacturing defect?
– Whether the Hon’ble National Commission was justified in coming to a conclusion that the Petitioner was liable to repair manufacturing defect when there are no findings of latches or deficiency of service against the Petitioner?
Source: Barandbench
