1

Consumer Protection Digest

On
Manufacturing defects and Vehicles delivery
A.B.S. system Fora below allowed supply of ABS free of charge in violation of Motor Vehicle Rules Even
defect in brake not proved Relief granted by Fora below set aside - 2014(1) CPC 53 N.C.
A.C. Car - Complainant issued certificate of satisfactory service after repair of A.C. - Dealer not to pay for
alleged defect - 2002(1) CPC 25 Chd.
--Complainant could not prove defect in AC of car and claimed huge compensation of Rs. 19 lacs Order of Fora
below declining any relief to complainant justified - 2012(1) CPC 656 N.C.
A.C. repairs - Complainant issued certificate of satisfactory service after repair of A.C. - Dealer not to pay for
alleged defect - 2002(1) CPC 25 Chd.
Acknowledgement - Delay of 4 years in filing claim petition after lodgement of claim with manufacturer - No
acknowledgment of liability proved - Petition dismissed as time barred - 2002(1) CPC 542 S.C.
Action against M. D. If a Director or M. D. is on responsible post execution proceedings can be started
against such officer of the corporation or the company - 2013(2) CPC 397 Pb.
Adequate relief - OP had changed engine of Auto Rickshaw twice but defect could not be removed Relief of
Rs. 50,000/- granted by the State Commission held to be adequate Further enhancement in amount declined - 2013(2)
CPC 549 N.C.
Adulteration - Complainant suffered dropsy disease on consumption of mustered oil purchased from Ops -
Manufacturer and shopkeeper directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation with cost of Rs. 10,000 - 2006(2) CPC 254 Delhi
Agents liability - A dealer acting as an agent of a manufacturer, cannot be held liable for breach for contract
by manufacturer - 1999(2) CPC 530 Pb.
--Booking of amount of vehicle paid to agent where particulars of Principal were disclosed Agent not liable for
deficiency in service and not liable for refund booking amount - 2009(1) CPC 57 S.C.
Air condition - System purchased for Guest House, was found to be defective during warranty period -
Replacement of system was ordered - 1996(1) CPC 402 N.C.
Work of air conditioning unit was not completed despite payment of 25% amount - OP directed to complete the
work within one month and pay Rs. 5000 as compensation - 2002(2) CPC 573 Pb.
Air condition system System installed in computer centre Became defective after one year and was not
repaired Deficiency in service proved OP directed to pay compensation in lump sum of Rs. 5 lacs with 9% p.a. interest
- 2010(2) CPC 521 N.C.
Air condition unit - Complainant was put to suffocation due to non provision of air condition in Respondents
Theatre - Held, entitled to compensation of Rs. 150 - 1993 CPC 244 Bihar
Air Conditioner - Air Conditioner alleged to be defective, was purchased for commercial firm dealing in
watches - Complaint held not maintainable - 1995(1) CPC 117 U.P.
Air conditioner not functioning in cinema hall due to paucity of electricity supply - Cinema owner not liable for
deficiency in service - 1997(2) CPC 419 Chd.
Air conditioner not provided in theatre - Owner held liable to compensate a ticket holder, complainant - 1993 CPC
243 A.P.
Air conditioner purchased ceased to function within an hour of installation - OP directed to replace AC with
compensation - 2003(1) CPC 387 T.N.
--Air conditioner purchased did not work satisfactorily even after it was given for repairs after 11 months - 75%
price directed to be paid by dealer to complainant - 1997(2) CPC 427 Chd.
Air conditioner purchased for commercial premises - Complaint for deficient service not maintainable - 1994(1)
CPC 71 Delhi
--Air conditioner purchased from dealer found to be defective - Dealer directed to replace the machine or to refund
the price with Rs. 3000 as compensation - 1998(1) CPC 670 Chd.
2

Air conditioner remained non functioning even after 6 times repairs - Dealer directed to refund total price with
10% interest and costs - 2002(1) CPC 73 Chd.
Air conditioner was not supplied despite full payment - OP directed to refund its price with 18% interest and
compensation of Rs. 12,900 - 2003(2) CPC 472 Pb.
Air conditioners defect could not be removed by repeated repairs - Refund of price is the only solution - 1999(2)
CPC 396 Maha.
Air Conditioning System not working satisfactorily - Opposite Party directed to pay 18% interest on deposits till
realization - 1999(1) CPC 549 Delhi
Airconditioners were replaced as the same were found to be defective - Dealer directed to pay 18% interest P.A.
on price of machines - 1997(2) CPC 434 Pb.
Complainant failed to prove excess price charged by Opposite Party - No evidence proved alleged manufacturing
defect - Relief declined - 2004(2) CPC 103 Pb.
Compressor of Airconditioner was found to be a second hand piece not functioning properly - Dealer directed to
pay compensation of Rs. 6,500 - 1999(1) CPC 593 N.C.
--Defect in Air Conditioner cannot be treated as a manufacturing defect of vehicle - 2012(2) CPC 631 S.C.
Malfunctioning of air conditioner during warranty period - Manufacturer bound to remove defect even if
machinery purchased for commercial purpose - 1996(2) CPC 166 N.C.
--Two split air conditioners failed to function properly Extra amount charged by OP for repair during warranty
period OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 for committing the fault - 2013(2) CPC 87 N.C.
Undue delay in carrying repairs of Air Conditioner - Opposite party directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation -
2005(1) CPC 129 Delhi
Air conditioner/service - Respondent not rendering repair services during warrant period - Held liable to pay
Rs. 10,000 to the appellant - 1994(1) CPC 71 Delhi
Alu Bhujia Alu Bhujia found 65/75 gm short in weight OP is directed to pay Rs. 75,000 instead of Rs. 1 lacs
2010(1) CPC 193 M.P.
Amplifiers defect - Amplifiers purchased found to be defective - Both dealer and manufacturer are liable to
refund the price with compensation and cost - 2005(2) CPC 557 Kar.
Amplifier purchased from the dealer is not generating requisite cooling for plant and machinery - Dealer and not
manufacturer held liable for deficiency in service - 2008(3) CPC 31 N.C.
Analyzer defect - Complainant purchased analyzer from O.P. which did not give proper reading even for a
single day - O.P. directed to refund the price alongwith compensation and cost - 2005(2) CPC 553 Kar.
Appreciation of evidence - Car in question caught fire within 4 days of its purchase State Commission
concluded that there was a manufacturing defect without appreciation of proper evidence Impugned order set aside
2011(2) CPC 7 N.C.
Articles for marriage - Goods purchased for marriage of complainants daughter alleged to be inferior -
Appointment of Inspection Commissioner by Forum is justified - 1998(2) CPC 102 W. Bengal
Assembled computer - Complainant alleged defect in computer which was assembled item sold with
warranty of repair only - Compensation not permissible to complainant - 2002(1) CPC 254 Pb.
Assembled air-conditioner - Complainant paid price for original Amtrex air-conditioner Assembled
goods supplied Unfair Trade Practice on the part of OP proved Petitioner directed to compensate the respondent -
2010(2) CPC 168 N.C.
Assurance OP failed to remove defect despite an assurance that needful would be done if complaint
was withdrawn OP directed to refund full price with 7% interest after withdrawal of complaint - 2013(3) CPC
90 N.C.
Auto analyser Auto analyser purchased from OP failed to function within 15 days of its purchase Refund of
machine price with 6% interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000 upheld - 2013(1) CPC 374 N.C.
Auto Cycle - Auto Cycle with defects remained in possession of complainant for 12 years - Replacement of
vehicle not justified - Compensation of Rs. 5,000 allowed - 2005(1) CPC 504 Delhi
Auto Rickshaw defect - Auto Rickshaw suffering from manufacturing defect - Consumer held entitled to
relief and maintained in revision - 2002(1) CPC 286 N.C.
--OP had changed engine of Auto Rickshaw twice but defect could not be removed Relief of Rs. 50,000/- granted
by the State Commission held to be adequate Further enhancement in amount declined - 2013(2) CPC 549 N.C.
3

Vehicle purchased with open eye by making additional payment - Allegation of manufacturing defect not
established - 2006(1) CPC 676 U.P.
--Autorickshaw purchased for self employment was found to be defective - Respondent seller held liable to pay
compensation - 1995(2) CPC 309 Ker.
--Auto Rickshaw purchased from OP found to be defective OP directed to compensate complainant as
manufacturing defect was detected during warranty period 2011(2) CPC 573 N.C.
Auto vehicle - Consumption of petrol - Vehicle could run only 12 Kms. in one Ltr. petrol against 24 Kms. as
assured - Refund of auto price with 18% interest held to be justified - 2002(1) CPC 373 N.C.
Automatic exchange - Machine for automatic exchange supplied by respondent found to be defective -
Complainant held entitled to refund of total of amount with expenses and cost - 2000(2) CPC 53 Chd.
Automobile dealer - Automobile dealer retained car given for repair for unreasonable time - Dealer to pay Rs.
5,000 Compensation to car owner - 1998(1) CPC 577 Chd.
Award - After sales service provider is not liable under C. P. Act Manufacturer and dealer, jointly and severely
responsible for replacement/refund of the cost - 2010(2) CPC 177 N.C.
Bakery Making Machine - Bakery Making Machine found to be defective - Manufacturer held liable to
refund the price with 18% interest and cost - 2000(1) CPC 530 Pb.
Balance price - Complainant alleged manufacturing defect after distance of 10000 km covered by vehicle He
did not avail service of OP as balance amount was outstanding against him No manufacturing defect proved in the case
2009(3) CPC 486 Hr.
Bal pen machine - Defect - Machine purchased found to be defective which was purchased for business
purpose - Complainant not a consumer - 2004(1) CPC 213 C.G.
Ban on publication - As many as 19 out of 45 answers to questions were found wrong in the book meant for
PCS Examination - Complainant allowed Rs. 10,000 for suffering loss - Publication banned - 2003(2) CPC 667 Chd.
Bearing machine - Bearing lathe machine purchased for Rs. 20 lacs proved to be defective - Purchase for
commercial purpose - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2003(1) CPC 177 Pb.
Belt for wheat thresher - Belt purchased found to be defective resulting in loss to complainant - Respondent
directed to pay Rs. 5000 as compensation - 1995(2) CPC 420 Hr.
Beneficiary - Second purchaser of a defective car, being a beneficiary is competent to file a complaint, as a
consumer - 1998(1) CPC 655 Pb.
Biased report Research institution carried inspection of vehicle with consent of both parties Objection of
raising issue of bias by either party is without substance Complaint dismissed 2010(1) CPC 98 N.C.
Bicycles defect - Cracks developed in bicycle 6 months after purchase - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 1,200 as
compensation - Evidence on fact of inconvenience is not necessary - 1992 CPC 642 N.C.
Bidi in Fanta bottle - Complainant purchased a crate of Fantas bottle - A bidi floating in the bottle was
noticed - Excessive compensation can not be passed for no loss caused to complainant - 2002(1) CPC 11 Chd.
Bill on letter pad Bill on letter pad is issued by some firms to save sale tax OP held guilty of deficiency in
service for defect in sofa set 2009(3) CPC 717 Hr.
Bipap machine - Complainant suffered breathlessness by using Bipap machine - Dealer directed to replace the
machine or refund its price with interest - 2000(1) CPC 56 W.Bengal
Birthday cake - Order placed for pine apple cake but it was found to chocolate cake not giving good taste to
guests - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 250 plus Rs. 480 i.e. price of case - 1998(2) CPC 127 Chd.
Blurred advertisement - Photograph of deceased published in Newspaper was found to be blurred - Refund
of 1/3 of amount charged for publication allowed - 1997(1) CPC 493 Pb.
Boarder/Lodger - A boarder in the Hostel is entitled to lodge a complaint under the C. P. Act against
withdrawal of facilities - 1995(1) CPC 396 W. Bengal
Brick machine - Brick manufacturing machine not delivered to complainant who had paid Rs. One lakh -
Refund of deposit with interest directed - 1996(2) CPC 38 N.C.
Brick unit - Mechanised brick unit not erected for 3 months - Purchaser held entitled to 12% interest on deposit
with Rs. 10,000 as compensation - 1994(2) CPC 494 A.P.
4

Brickman machine - Use of machine for commercial purpose as for earning livelihood by employment is a
matter of evidence - 1997(1) CPC 231 S.C.
Bus body Bus body agreed to be delivered in June but delayed upto October, 2008 Vehicle needed for
Assembly Election State Commission directed OP to refund deposited amount of Rs. 20.75 lacs with compensation of
Rs. 10 lacs Order upheld - 2012(2) CPC 496 N.C.
Bus chairs defect Engine of bus stopped to function within one month of its purchase OP directed to
replace its engine with enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 - 2012(1) CPC 496 H.P.
Bus seat - Defective bus seat created harassment - Complainant allowed Rs. 1,000 as cost - 2005(1) CPC 582 Raj.
Business loss - No compensation can be granted for business loss under Consumer Protection Act - 2004(1)
CPC 465 Uttranchal
C.T. Scanner C.T. Scanner machine covered under replacement policy stopped functioning during period of
policy State Commission ordered refund of Rs. 915200 with interest and compensation on the basis of terms of policy
Impugned order upheld in appeal - 2014(3) CPC 526 N.C.
Cable network - Dispute relating to cable network comes under the purview of C. P. Act - Non mention of
network in receipt is irrelevant - 2005(2) CPC 33 Uttaranchal
O.P. refused to provide channel De-coders despite receiving payment for the same - O.P. directed to provide the
channel with compensation of Rs. 1 lac - 2005(2) CPC 323 N.C.
Cable wire - Damage to T.V. set by loose cable wire not proved by cogent evidence - Mere suspicion cannot be
made ground for fixing liability on P.S.E.B. - 2002(1) CPC 460 Pb.
Cadbury Chocolate - A packet of two Cadbury Chocolates found infested with worm - Delay of 7 months in
presentation of sample for analysis - Opposite Party not liable for deficient service - 2004(1) CPC 645 H.P.
--Complainants 4-year child fell ill after consuming Cadbury chocolates infested with worm Huge compensation
without following provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (c) cannot be sustained Adequate compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded -
2009(2) CPC 715 N.C.
Car - A stolen car does not come under the definition of goods under Consumer Protection Act - 1993 CPC 372
N.C.
Complainant purchased car from respondent - Car found to be defective - Respondent held liable to refund the
price - 1995(1) CPC 363 Hr.
Escalated price - Trader cannot be held liable for charging escalated price when the same is not fixed under any
law - 1993 CPC 177 N.C.
Reading of mileage of the car is to be read from the date of delivery for the purpose of warranty period - 1994(1)
CPC 415 N.C.
Car accessory - It was not proved that O.P. had admitted claim of car-accessories - Relief declined - 2004(2)
CPC 315 Chd.
Car booking - A car dealer is not liable to compensate for late delivery of car, unless violation of seniority list is
proved - 2001(1) CPC 433 N.C
Amount deposited with dealer who committed deficiency in service - Manufacturer cannot escape its liability to
refund the amount - 2005(2) CPC 179 N.C.
Car manufactured at Bangalore - Booking at Ambala - Complaint filed at Rohtak is without jurisdiction - 1998(1)
CPC 462 Hr.
Complainant advanced the money as allured by the respondent - Loan not arranged by respondent nor the car was
booked - Respondent directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to respondent as compensation - 1991 CPC 473 Hr.
--Complainant claimed refund of deposited amount paid for registration of car as colour of car was different He
signed the registration papers of his own free Will Refund of whole amount cannot be ordered Further relief declined -
2014(3) CPC 37 N.C.
--Dealer acted as a window to receive policy amount of vehicle on behalf of manufacturer Only manufacturer can
be held liable through civil proceedings 2012(3) CPC 552 N.C.
Dealer cannot deduct bank charges on deposits when booking amount is refunded to complainant - 1999(1) CPC
28 Chd.
Dealer failed to deliver car within stipulated period - Directed to refund deposited amount with 18% interest -
2002(1) CPC 215 N.C.
5

Dealer failed to supply booked car after receiving full amount - Dealer and manufacturer directed to refund car
price with 18% p.a. interest - 2000(1) CPC 483 Pb.
Dealer failed to supply the vehicle nor the deposited amount was paid when refunded by manufacturer - O.P.
directed to refund the amount with interest - 2006(1) CPC 26 N.C.
Dealer not bound to pay penal interest due to delay in delivery of car - 1994(1) CPC 661 Hr.
--Delay of 2 years in delivery of car agreed to be given in 14 days - Dealer directed to refund full price with 9%
interest and cost Rs. 25,000 in each case - 2002(1) CPC 155 Chd.
Demand of 24% P.A. interest on refund of car booking amount not justified - 12% P.A. interest allowed - 1999(2)
CPC 552 Chd.
Deposited amount not refunded despite cancellation of booking order - Manufacturer and not the dealer is liable
for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 377 Raj.
--District Forum directed OP to refund Rs. 2500 charged as excess amount at the time of car booking State
Commissions order enhancing the amount of Rs. 5504 without valid reasons set aside - 2014(3) CPC 265 N.C.
Forum directed manufacturer and dealer liable to refund booking amount with interest - Refund can be had only
from manufacturer - 2000(2) CPC 603 Pb.
Mere deposit for booking of car does not make a person consumer under the Act - Completion of contract is
essential condition - 1996(1) CPC 621 Guj.
No evidence produced to prove that complainants serial number of booking was ignored - Dealer not liable for
deficiency in service - 1998(2) CPC 198 Chd.
--Non delivery of car and non refund of deposited money amounts to a deficiency in service - 2009(1) CPC 258 Hr.
--OPs failed to deliver car despite payment of total price Reason for non delivery was termination of
dealership OPs directed to refund deposited amount with 9% interest Order upheld - 2013(3) CPC 12 N.C.
Non delivery of booked car within two weeks - It is a sale of goods and not of rendering any service - Relief
declined - 1993 CPC 121 N.C.
O.P. delayed delivery of car to extract enhanced price - O.P. liable for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 270 J.
& K.
Opposite parties delivered car, booked by complainant, to a third person - Manufacturer and dealer held liable for
deficiency - 1994(1) CPC 57 Hr.
Petitioner company having different Directors than respondent company - Order passed against petitioner without
impleading as a party is illegal - 2003(2) CPC 477 Pb.
Refund of booking amount of car ordered - Manufacturer alone and not the dealer is liable - 2008(1) CPC 138
Chd.
Several cars booked for commercial purpose - Booking cancelled and refund of amount claimed - Consumer
jurisdiction cannot be invoked - 1998(2) CPC 55 Chd.
Car booking/reduction in price Reduction of Rs. 1 lacs subsequent to booking whose benefit not given
to the purchaser Dealer cannot be held guilty of unfair trade practice - 2012(2) CPC 572 N.C.
Car colour - It is the choice of the customer to select the colour of car booked with the dealer - 1997(2) CPC 569
Chd.
Car damage - Complainants car transported by respondent was damaged in transit - Respondent ordered to pay
Rs. 10,000 -1993 CPC 12 N.C.
Insurance claim of damaged vehicle cannot be repudiated merely that registered owner has given power of
attorney to a third person - 1996(2) CPC 249 Chandigarh.
--No documentary evidence produced to have damaged car by improper installation of battery - Relief declined -
2004(1) CPC 365 Chd.
Undue delay in settlement of claim as Head Office disagreed with surveyors report - Insurer directed to pay full
claim of insured car with 12% P.A. interest - 1999(2) CPC 191 Chd.
Car dealer - Booked car not delivered within stipulated period - Dealer directed to refund deposits with 18%
interest with 17,000 - 1999(1) CPC 250 Chd.
Car dealer delayed delivery of Car-Dealer and not manufacturer held liable for deficient service - 1999(2) CPC
653 Chd.
Car dealer is liable to refund the car price when deficiency in service is proved - He cannot escape his liability by
saying that manufacturer alone is liable to compensate - 1999(1) CPC 288 Hr.
Car dealer sold new car with engine and chassis of old car - Dealer directed to pay Rs. one lac compensation to
complainant - 1998(1) CPC 113 Hr.
6

Car dealer wrongfully charging enhanced price as car was available with him before enhanced price - Directed to
refund excess price with 7% interest - 1999(2) CPC 197 Pb.
Dealer could not receive car from head office - Not liable for deficient service in delivery of car - 1998(2) CPC
513 Chd.
Liability - Manufacturer is liable jointly and severely for the negligence committed by the dealer as an agent -
2003(2) CPC 400 Jhar.
No evidence produced to prove that complainants serial number of booking was ignored - Dealer not liable for
deficiency in service - 1998(2) CPC 198 Chd.
Priority number sent through Regd. letter but returned undelivered - Dealer only to refund deposits with 9% p.a.
interest - 2000(2) CPC 71 Pb.
Car dealer/manufacturer - Car booked not delivered within stipulated period - Both dealer and
manufacturer held jointly and severally liable to refund deposits with 18% interest - 2000(2) CPC 389 Chd.
Refund of Rs. 20,000 claimed from dealer on cancellation of booking - Manufacturer alone liable to refund the
booking amount - 1998(2) CPC 164 Chd.
Car dealers liability - Delay in application for rebate due to complainants fault - Dealer not liable for
deficiency in service - 2001(2) CPC 3 Chd.
Once it is established that a car has manufacturing defect - Dealer/manufacturer cannot escape liability by alleged
subsequent improvement on its working - 1998(2) CPC 505 Pb.
Car defect - A transferee of car purchased from original owner cannot claim compensation from the
dealer/manufacturer for deficiency in service - 1998(2) CPC 508 Pb.
--Blast in car alleged by complainant/respondent alleging manufacturing defect Complainant was satisfied with the
repairs carried by appellants mechanic Signatures on Job Card under pressure cannot be accepted Manufacturer not
liable for deficiency in service 2009(3) CPC 559 Pb.
--Car defect Vehicle met an accident while in transit Several parts were replaced thereafter passed as a brand new
car Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1 lacs - 2010(3) CPC 296 N.C.
Car defect detected during warranty period - Manufacture/dealer held liable for deficiency in service - 1998(1)
CPC 655 Pb.
Car in question purchased for doing poultry business of the partnership firm - Mere use of vehicle for personal
purpose does not prove the matter is not covered under commercial purpose - 2006(1) CPC 537 Chd.
Car purchased broke down just after covering 111 Kms. - Serious defects detected - O.P. directed to pay Rs.
21,000 as compensation and costs - 2005(2) CPC 304 Chd.
Car purchased by advocate found to be defective - Excess price charged - Dealer directed to refund excess price
with compensation of Rs. 10000 - 1996(2) CPC 247 Chd.
Car purchased by complainant found to be defective - Replacement of car is not necessary when he can be
compensated in monitory form - 1996(1) CPC 654 N.C.
Car purchased for commercial use - Complaint regarding car defect not maintainable - 1997(1) CPC 22 Chd.
Car purchased was having manufacturing defect where from oil and water were leaking - Full price paid - Dealer
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 with Rs. 2,500 as costs - 1999(2) CPC 662 Chd.
Car sent for repairs 33 times within 2 years - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 25,000 for deficiency in service - 2003(2)
CPC 194 Chd.
Car sold to complainant was found to be accidental - Complainant allowed refund of price with Rs. 10,000 as
compensation - 1995(2) CPC 18 N.C.
Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase - Manufacturer and not dealer directed to pay compensation -
1999(2) CPC 548 Chd.
--Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase OP demanded Rs. 65,000 for removing defect within warranty
period Car was detained for 6 and half years OP directed to refund price of car with interest/cost - 2010(2) CPC 193
Pb.
--Complainant after plying the vehicle for 5- years alleged that model 2004 instead 2005 was supplied by the
dealer Order of replacement of vehicle unjustified - Compensation of Rs. 1 lacs in lump sum upheld - 2012(1) CPC 258
N.C.
Complainant prolonging the matter, not producing car for removal of defect before dealer - Directed to produce
the same within 4 weeks or face dismissal of petition -2000(1) CPC 587 N.C.
Complainant repurchased car from third party without sellers consent - Warranty ends with resale of vehicle -
Seller not liable for compensation due to defect in vehicle - 1996(1) CPC 372 Chd.
7

Complainant was delivered a defective Tata Mobile suffering from several defects - Dealers directed to refund
reduced price of Rs. 1,76,705 with 12% interest with compensation and cost - 2000(2) CPC 543 U.P.
--Dealer detaining car after repairs within warranty period - Demanding Rs. 16,000 from purchaser - Dealer held
liable for deficiency in service - 1997(1) CPC 312 H.P.
Defect could not be removed despite 12 visits to O.P. in 7 months - Compensation of Rs. 20,000 justified -
2004(1) CPC 89 Chd.
Defect in car was proved from the reports of expert - State Commission rightly directed OP to carry out repairs
free of cost with compensation of Rs. 10,000 - 2003(1) CPC 609 N.C.
Defect not removed despite repeated efforts - Manufacturing defect proved - Relief granted - 2004(2) CPC 525
Chd.
Defect of Complainants car was removed whenever brought for servicing - Refund of car price disallowed -
1994(2) CPC 582 N.C.
Defective car sold as new one - Defect not removed despite request - Dealer and manufacturer directed to remove
defect and pay compensation of Rs. 90,000 - 2004(1) CPC 438 S.C.
District Forum directed the dealer to pay compensation of Rs. 12,000 to complainant due to defect in sold car -
Impugned order based upon material evidence - Further enhancement in compensation declined - 2001(2) CPC 163 Chd.
Leakage of oil seal of Maruti car - Several other defects also found - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 5,000 with costs of
Rs. 1,000 - 1999(1) CPC 393 Chd.
Liability of a trader does not extent beyond period of warranty - 1995(1) CPC 354 Hr.
Luxurious car purchased by spending huge amount - Found suffering from manufacturing defect - O.P. directed to
replace the car with new one or to refund its price - 2007(2) CPC 665 N.C.
Luxury car purchased for huge amount of Rs. 37 lakh - Engine of car broke down after covering few mileage - OP
directed to pay Rs. 60,000 as compensation and cost - 2006(1) CPC 304 Chd.
Major defect in car purchased - Dealer liable to replace the vehicle - 1996(2) CPC 145 Chandigarh
Major parts of car had to be replaced twice within 5 days during warranty period - Defect could not be removed
Manufacturer/Dealer directed to replace car with compensation of Rs. 5000 - 2001(1) CPC 174 Chd.
Manufacturer and Dealer failed to remove mechanical defect of car - Directed to refund car price with interest -
1995(1) CPC 317 N.C.
Manufacturing defect found in car purchased - O.P. directed to make the car worth road running with one year
warranty - 2004(1) CPC 421 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect in car - Manufacturer directed to refund deposit with 12% interest - 1993 CPC 601 Delhi
Noise in the engine from the very beginning - Removal of timing belt and timing tensioner found unsatisfactory -
Replacement of engine is the only remedy - 2002(1) CPC 103 Pb.
Old accidented car sold as new car by dealer - Sold at reduced price by purchaser - Dealer directed to pay Rs.
25,000 with interest - 1999(2) CPC 280 M.P.
Once it is established that a car has manufacturing defect - Dealer/manufacturer cannot escape liability by alleged
subsequent improvement on its working - 1998(2) CPC 505 Pb.
--Only day to day defects in running of car were found which were removed by timely repairs Parts covered under
warranty were replaced free of costs OP not liable for any deficient service 2011(1) CPC 217 N.C.
Removal of defect without going into the version of opposite party could not be ordered - 1996(2) CPC 263 N.C.
--Repairs of general wears and tears cannot be termed as manufacturing defect - 2010(3) CPC 162 Hr.
Several defects in new Maruti Car appeared during warranty period - Compensation raised from Rs. 5,000 to Rs.
20,000 - 2002(2) CPC 566 Pb.
Several manufacturing defects appeared within few days after purchase of car - Opposite Party directed to pay
75% of price of car with compensation - 2005(1) CPC 569 Chd.
The agreed expert found the car purchased functioning satisfactorily - Dealer cannot be directed to refund the
price - 1997(1) CPC 477 N.C.
The buyer of car refused to take the car to garage of dealer for removal of defect - Dealer not liable to compensate
- 1994(1) CPC 462 N.C.
The car purchased by complainant started giving trouble within warranty period - Dealer directed to do necessary
repair and pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation - 2001(2) CPC 368 N.C.
The car purchased found suffering from various defects - Complainant allowed compensation of Rs. 52,186 plus
costs of Rs. 2,000 - 1999(1) CPC 192 Hr.
The car purchased had to undergo extensive repairs after coverage of 27000 Kms. - Piston rings changed without
owners notice - Respondents liable to pay Rs. 15,000 as compensation - 1998(2) CPC 282 Chd.
8

--Warranty Damages due to defective electrical material Complainant approached the insurance company and
obtained the relief, though not to his entire satisfaction, could not lay a claim on the petitioner/dealer Not entitled to
relief - 2010(3) CPC 648 N.C.
Car delivery - Car agreed to be delivered within 2 months after booking - Non delivery of car within prescribed
time amounts to deficiency in service - Excess amount ordered to be refunded with cost Rs. 5000 - 2000(1) CPC 213 A.P.
--Car booked was not delivered within stipulated period of 6 months - Company directed to deliver car without extra
price - 1995(2) CPC 397 Hr.
Car not delivered within stipulated period after payment - Dealer held liable for deficiency in service - 1999(2)
CPC 16 Pb.
Car purchased not delivered on due date - Compensation allowed to complainant - 1994(1) CPC 247 Delhi
Complainant was delivered A/C (CR4AS2) with catalyser instead of Maruti Car A/C Tatkal - Dealer directed to
refund excess price with interest and compensation - 2001(1) CPC 536 Delhi
Complaint regarding non-delivery of expensive car against deposit of Rs. 20 lacs - Allegation and counter
allegation between the parties - Remedy lies in Civil Court - 1999(2) CPC 561 Chd.
Complicated issues involved regarding non delivery of expensive Car - Relief to be claimed in civil court only -
1999(2) CPC 567 Chd.
Dealer cannot be held liable for delay in delivery of car if delay is not deliberately made- 1995(2) CPC 242 Hr.
Dealer charged enhanced price of car without reason - Directed to refund excess amount with 18% interest and Rs.
10,000 as compensation - 2000(2) CPC 480 M.P.
Dealer delayed delivery of car with a view to charge enhanced price - Directed to refund enhanced price with 18%
interest - 1999(2) CPC 134 H.P.
Dealer failed to deliver cars within stipulated period - Directed to pay 18% interest p.a. on deposit with Rs. 10,000
as costs - 1999(1) CPC 591 N.C.
Dealer held liable to refund the amount for non delivery of car in time - 1994(1) CPC 100 Orissa
Delay in car delivery as consignment from manufacturer reached late - Dealer not liable for deficiency in service -
2008(2) CPC 129 Pb.
Delay in delivery of car of five months not intentional - Relief to complainant denied - 1995(1) CPC 618 N.C.
Delay of 6 months in delivery of car, 18% interest on deposits allowed - 1996(1) CPC 553 Chandigarh
Delay of 6 years in delivery of car - Price also enhanced - Complainant consumer entitled to refund with 18%
interest - 1994(2) CPC 450 Hr.
Delay of 7 years in delivery of car - Dealer/manufacturer directed to refund deposits with 10% interest and costs -
2003(1) CPC 257 Chd.
--Delivery of car not made in time - Dealer directed to refund the amount with 12% interest - 2002(2) CPC 222 Chd.
Enhanced price - Payment of price and delivery of goods are concurrent conditions unless agreed otherwise - 1992
CPC 626 Hr.
Entire price deposited for car which was to be delivered within 15 days - No delivery for 4 months - Interest on
deposit at the rate of 12% allowed - 1993 CPC 344 (1) U.P.
--Features not available as promised Dealer is equally accountable for supply of deficient article Complaint
entitled to relief 2011(1) CPC 73 N.C.
Matter of fraud and cheating cannot be gone into under Consumer Protection Act - Parties relegated to Civil
jurisdiction for necessary relief in car delivery case - 2004(1) CPC 678 Chd.
No deliberate delay was proved by in delivery of car - Dealer not guilty of deficiency in service - 1997(2) CPC
181 N.C
Non-delivery of car after deposit of booking amount sent to the manufacturer - Dealer not liable for deficiency in
service - 2006(1) CPC 231 N.C.
Only manufacture delaying delivery of car without no fault of the dealer - Manufacturer alone is liable to
compensate the complainant - 2001(2) CPC 135 Chd.
Payment made to a person who falsely stated to be dealer of Maruti company - Company not obliged to make
delivery of vehicle - 2006(2) CPC 649 N.C.
Respondent not delivered car though complainant deposited whole amount - Complainant entitled to
compensation with interest on deposit -1991 CPC 219 N.C.
Tentative date for delivery of car means a reasonable date and not any date - 1998(1) CPC 697 Pondicherry
Total sum of Rs. 7,00,181 for brand new car - Old and repaired car supplied to complainant - Dealer held liable to
refund price with 18% interest and Rs. 5,000 as compensation - 1998(2) CPC 519 Chd.
9

Undue delay in delivery of car by dealer without reason - Directed to refund the deposits with 18% interest per
annum - 1997(2) CPC 569 Chd.
Undue delay in delivery of handicapped car - Complainant entitled to excess amount and compensation of Rs.
10,000 - 1995(2) CPC 163 N.C.
Car dickey defect - Complainant hammered dickey himself - Dealer not liable for dicky defect - 2003(1) CPC
251 Chd.
Car discount Dealer could not pay amount of discount as complainant delayed in giving identity card
Payment was made soon after identify card was deposited OP dealer committed no fault - 2010(3) CPC 97 Chd.
Car manufacturer - Manufacturing defect found in car purchased by complainant - Manufacturer alone held
liable to compensate the complainant - 2001(2) CPC 334 S.C.
Car paint - Car paint fainted within 2/3 months - Complainant entitled to compensation - 1995(1) CPC 394 Delhi
Paint of new car fainted within a short period - Respondent dealer held liable to pay Rs. 10000 as compensation -
1995(1) CPC 437 Delhi
Car price - A dealer is entitled to charge price of car prevalent on the date of car delivery - 2001(1) CPC 433
N.C.
Booked car not delivered within stipulated period - Dealer directed to refund deposits with 18% interest with
17,000 - 1999(1) CPC 250 Chd.
Car dealer charging higher car price - Case not covered under the Consumer Protection Act - 1992 CPC 753 N.C.
Car dealer is duty bound to deliver booked car at the price prevailing at the time of institution of complaint -
1998(2) CPC 198 Chd.
Charging of enhanced car price due to rise in excise duty amounts to deficiency in service - 1999(2) CPC 463 S.C.
Complainant was delivered defective car at a late stage - Held entitled to refund of deposit with 15% interest -
1994(2) CPC 352 Delhi
Dealer allowed delivery of car out of turn impressed by complainants status - Demand of car price at enhanced
rate - Complaint by prospective customer held not maintainable - 1999(2) CPC 166 Pb.
Dealer charging more price than that agreed to pay at the time of booking - Complainant entitled to refund of
enhanced price with 14% interest - 1997(2) CPC 48 H.P.
Dealer delayed delivery of car with a view to charge enhanced price - Directed to refund enhanced price with 18%
interest - 1999(2) CPC 134 H.P.
Delay in delivery of car due to dealers fault - Purchaser not liable to pay enhanced price of car -1996(1) CPC 428
Hr.
--Increase in car price - Payment made by complainant - Delay in delivering of car - Complainant not entitled to
compensation - 1991 CPC 49 N.C.
Intentional withholding of delivery of car to take advantage of price hike - Seller liable of deficient in service -
1995(2) CPC 1 S.C.
Respondent charging enhanced price of car - No violation of any legal rules as prices were not to be displayed
under any law - Relief to consumer declined- -1993 CPC 145 N.C.
Total price of car paid - Delivery delayed - No enhanced price can be charged by dealer - Refund with 15%
interest ordered - 1997(1) CPC 596 Hr.
Car purchase - Car purchased by partnership firm - Purpose being commercial complaint does not lie under
C.P. Act - 1998(1) CPC 488 T.N.
Complainant claims for refund of Rs. 80,000 as Car price based only upon his affidavit without any corroborative
evidence - Order of Forum accepting the complaint not sustainable - 2006(2) CPC 115 Chd.
Complaint filed to evade balance money payable by complainant - Relief declined - 1996(2) CPC 577 N.C.
Dealer ready to refund booking price of booked earlier car - Cannot be compelled to deliver new model at old rate
- 1996(1) CPC 605 Hr.
Delay of one year in handing over documents of purchased vehicle - Seller to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation -
1995(2) CPC 356 Pb.
False complaint - Complainant failed to prove the Case of deficient service by any positive evidence in a Car
purchase Case - Complaint dismissed with the Cost of Rs. 1000 - 1994(1) CPC 227 Pb.
Mere deposit of car price does not make the purchaser, a consumer under the Act - Buying of goods for
consideration is necessary or it should relate to defect in goods - 1993 CPC 747 Delhi
No excess amount proved to have been paid to dealer - Complainant not entitled to any relief - 1996(1) CPC 377
N.C.
10

Non delivery of relevant papers necessary for registration of car after sale, amounts to deficiency in service -
2001(1) CPC 102 Chd.
--OP failed to deliver car with essential features despite payment Directed to refund deposited amount with 12%
p.a. interest 2011(2) CPC 173 N.C.
Petition purchased car in option sale held by OP who failed to deliver necessary documents despite full payment
and repeated requests - Order of Forum directing to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation justified - 2007(1) CPC 336 N.C.
--Purchase of car out of Taxi quota - Purchaser entitled to refund of Rs. 21,000 paid as excise duty - Dealer and
manufacturer directed to refund the said amount - 2004(1) CPC 137 Uttranchal
Rim of car purchased were found to be defective - Price of rims Rs. 1,320 directed to be paid to complainant -
1998(1) CPC 539 Chd.
The car was delivered without Catalytic Converter for which price Rs. 7,000 was already charged - Dealer
directed to refund Rs. 7,000 to the purchaser - 1998(1) CPC 548 Chd.
The cases regarding charging excessive price of car do not come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act - 1994(2) CPC 209 U.P.
Car repair - Car given for repair kept for 3 months but defect not removed - Opposite Party to pay Rs. 20,000 to
complainant as compensation - 2004(2) CPC 471 Chd.
--Authorised dealer charged excessive bill for repair of accidented car State Commission directed OP to refund
excess amount Order upheld - 2010(2) CPC 592 N.C.
Automobile dealer retained car given for repair for unreasonable time - Dealer to pay Rs. 5,000 Compensation to
car owner - 1998(1) CPC 577 Chd.
Dealer detaining car after repairs within warranty period - Demanding Rs. 16,000 from purchaser - Dealer held
liable for deficiency in service - 1997(1) CPC 312 H.P.
Oldest car in respondents garage for repairs for the last 5 and half years levelling vague allegations of removal of
spare parts - Complaint frivolous - Complainant to remove car within one week - 1998(2) CPC 642 Hr.
OP engaged in Kabari business - Oral statement of a mechanic that he was employee of Kabari does not make
O.P. liable - 2003(1) CPC 500 Chd.
Respondent agreed to repair accidented car at Rs. 12,350 Repairs not done satisfactorily - Directed to pay Rs.
3,000 as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 556 Chd
Car replacement - No major defect was found in car as alleged - Replacement of car declined - Reasonable
compensation allowed - 1999(2) CPC 220 Chd.
Car service - Respondent found deficient in service of car sold to complainant - Held liable to compensate the
complainant - Repairs ordered to be free for 3 months also - 1991 CPC 30 N.C.
Car theft - Car insured for Rs. 4,80,000 was stolen and remained untraceable - Surveyors reporting loss at Rs.
3,80,000 disbelieved - Full claim allowed by Forum - 2004(1) CPC 568 Pb.
Car stolen from hotel parking which was parked free of cost - Hotel not liable to pay the price of car but only
compensation for mental harassment - 2005(1) CPC 622 N.C.
--Car was stolen from parking place - Parking charges of Rs. 10 paid - Only contractor, Not Municipality, held liable
- 2000(1) CPC 134 Chd.
Insured car stolen - Case remained untraced - Insurer directed to pay full claim with 12% per annum interest -
1999(2) CPC 418 Pb.
Insured car stolen during term of policy - Full claim accepted - Plea of final settlement cannot be accepted without
cogent evidence - 2001(1) CPC 70 Pb.
Insured car stolen from car parking - Complainant can claim its market price only from licensee of parking -
2001(1) CPC 426 N.C.
Car stolen during subsistence of policy - Insurer directed to pay Rs 2,42,000 with cost Rs. 1,000 - 2004(2) CPC
243 Uttaranchal
Claim of stolen car cannot be repudiated simply that case of theft was closed as untraced by Magistrate - 2007(1)
CPC 597 N.C.
Car tyre - Car tyre purchased by complainant became unserviceable after 2 months use - Replacement of tyre
without pro rata price ordered - 1996(1) CPC 556 Chandigarh.
Car warranty - Differential cage of car was broken within warranty period - Dealer liable to compensate -
1997(1) CPC 312 H.P.
11

Car/Taxi - Vehicle purchased for earning livelihood using it as a taxi - Plea of commercial purpose cannot
prevail - 2000(1) CPC 129 Chd.
Catalytic Converter - The car was delivered without Catalytic Convertor for which price Rs. 7,000 was
already charged - Dealer directed to refund Rs. 7,000 to the purchaser - 1998(1) CPC 548 Chd.
CD player - CD player purchased from dealer found to be defective - Manufacturer also jointly liable for
deficient service - 2006(2) CPC 472 H.P.
CD System failed to work properly during warranty period - OP directed to return its price with costs - 2002(1)
CPC 232 Pb.
CDI Coil - OP sold a CDI coil for scooter of complainant who had got it replaced from a road side mechanic -
Dealer not liable for deficiency in service - 2002(2) CPC 655 Chd.
Ceiling fan - Relief granted for defect in ceiling fan on the basis of receipt on reverse on visiting card having
probative value, is valid - 2000(1) CPC 151 A.P.
Cement - Laboratory test of cement was undertaken after a long period - Test report not reliable - 1997(2) CPC
205 Hr.
--Non supply of - Seller failed to supply cement on controlled rate with full quantity - Held, liable for deficiency in
service - 1997(1) CPC 125 N.C.
Cement defect - Compensation of Rs. 95,000 for defect in cement allowed without following mandatory
procedure of laboratory test - Order set aside - 2005(1) CPC 538 J & K H.C.
The cement purchased by complainant was alleged to be defective on the basis of a report given by unauthorised
laboratory - Dealer not liable to compensate - 2000(1) CPC 663 Ker.
--20 bags of cement purchased Cement was not gripping effectively Costly tiles broken and sewerage system
damaged by use of cement Respondent directed to compensate the appellant 2010(1) CPC 309 Pb.
Central Excise - Dealer deposited the Central Excise with the Department - Tax not payable on taxi -
Department and the dealer who is liable to refund the tax - 1998(2) CPC 263 Chd.
Chemist - Chemist agreed to exchange strip of medicine containing less capsules - Complainant not entitled to
any relief from manufacturer or dealer - 1998(1) CPC 602 Pb.
Chilli Crops - Insecticide purchased used for chilli crop remained ineffective - Sample not sent for laboratory
test - Dealer not held liable - 1998(1) CPC 53 Hr.
Chilling plant - Chilling plant purchased from respondent was found to be defective - Respondent held liable
for deficient service - 1995(1) CPC 615 N.C.
Choclate defect - Chocolate found infested with larva/worm - No laboratory test carried out - Manufacturer
cannot be held liable without test of chocolate u/s. 13 of the Act - 1998(2) CPC 596 H.P.
Chocolate analysis - A packet of two Cadbury Chocolates found infested with worm - Delay of 7 months in
presentation of sample for analysis - Opposite Party not liable for deficient service - 2004(1) CPC 645 H.P.
Choice of car colour Complainant claimed refund of deposited amount paid for registration of car as colour
of car was different He signed the registration papers of his own free Will Refund of whole amount cannot be ordered
Further relief declined - 2014(3) CPC 37 N.C.
Cielo car - A Cielo car purchased for companys business was found to be defective - Complainant not a
consumer under the C.P. Act - 1997(2) CPC 564 Chd.
Cloth purchase - The cloth purchased by complainant found to be defective - Relief granted to complainant -
1993 CPC 634 Hr.
Cloth stitching - Cloth stitched and sold by OP - Colour of cloth faded after dry cleaning - OP directed to pay
Rs. 7164 with 6% interest to complainant - 2003(2) CPC 444 Chd.
Coca Cola - Bad odour coming from Coca Cola bottle - Brought to notice by customer to the dealer - Dealer and
Bottler both are liable for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 142 Delhi
Cogent evidence - Complainant should have sought permission from the Court before selling the defective
vehicle When vehicle was sold it was not possible to establish by cogent evidence that it was suffering from
manufacturing defect Complaint dismissed - 2014(3) CPC 176 N.C.
Cold drink bottle - Nine dead insects detected in cold drink bottle - OP directed to pay exemplary
compensation of Rs. 1 lacs with 6% interest and cost - 2007(1) CPC 528 H.P.
12

Cold drinks - Bad odour coming from Coca Cola bottle - Brought to notice by customer to the dealer - Dealer
and Bottler both are liable for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 142 Delhi
Colour fading - Colour of cloth purchased for stitching churidar faded after first wash - OP directed to pay cloth
price with cost Rs. 500 - 2008(2) CPC 531 Kerala
Colour TV profit scheme - A cheque for Rs. 20,000 issued under prize Scheme was dishonoured - OP
cannot escape his liability - Directed to pay said amount with 9% interest with cost - 2006(1) CPC 528 Chd.
Coloured T.V. - Awarding of compensation for alleged diffect in colouered T.V., in absence of proper service
held not proper - 2001(2) CPC 88 Chd.
T.V. set found to be defective - Only manufacturer held liable to replace the set - 1999(1) CPC 642 Chd.
Commercial firm - The mere fact that complainant is a partnership firm does not prove that machine was
purchased for commercial purpose when it is only a small firm - 1996(2) CPC 286 N.C.
Commercial purpose - A Charitable Institution providing free treatment to 10% patients only - Service
rendered by institution cannot be said as a free service - 2000(1) CPC 52 S.C.
A Cielo car purchased for companys business was found to be defective - Complainant not a consumer under the
C.P. Act - 1997(2) CPC 564 Chd.
--A person obtaining goods for commercial purpose, is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act - 1992
CPC 201 Chd.
A person rendered service in respect of allotment of commercial building - Allottee is a consumer under the Act -
1992 CPC 245 Delhi
A policy obtained for commercial purpose cannot be made a ground for dismissal of claim of complainant -
2005(2) CPC 302 Chd.
A self-employed person carrying on business with support of one or two helpers is a Consumer - Purchase of
Magnetic mattress held not for commercial purpose - 2005(1) CPC 338 Chd.
A vehicle purchased for benevolent purpose by a doctor is not a purchase for commercial purpose - 2001(1) CPC
112 Maha.
Act is not applicable to commercial transactions - 1991 CPC 155 Delhi
Agricultural purpose is not a commercial purpose - 1995(2) CPC 573 Pb.
Allegation that house in question was being constructed for commercial purpose i.e. for letting out - Respondent
cannot escape his liability for deficient service on this ground - 1998(2) CPC 51 Hr.
An X-Ray equipment cannot be said to have been purchased for commercial purpose merely that is being used by
students paying certain fee - 1997(2) CPC 400 N.C.
Apple Disk Computer alleged to be defective was purchased for commercial use - Complainant not a consumer
under the Act - 1994(2) CPC 576 N.C.
Autorickshaw purchased for earning livelihood was found to be defective - Complaint against seller is
maintainable - 1995(2) CPC 309 Ker.
Bearing lathe machine purchased for Rs. 20 lacs proved to be defective - Purchase for commercial purpose -
Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2003(1) CPC 177 Pb.
Both complainant and her husband earning her livelihood by way of business - Purchase of shop in question being
for commercial use - Complaint under C.P. Act not maintainable - 2007(2) CPC 65 M.P.
Brick Machine purchased for earning livelihood - Purpose of purchase not commercial - 1996(2) CPC 38 N.C.
--Bus purchased to carry students and staff to School found to be defective - Purpose being of commercial nature,
complaint held not maintainable - 2006(1) CPC 678 Hr.
Car in dispute purchased for commercial purpose - Case being of purchase of goods - Complaint under C.P. Act
does not lie - 1998(1) CPC 249 Pb.
Car in question purchased for doing poultry business of the partnership firm - Mere use of vehicle for personal
purpose does not prove that matter is not covered under commercial purpose - 2006(1) CPC 537 Chd.
Car purchased by commercial concern - Complaint under Consumer Protection Act does not lie - 1998(2) CPC
430 Chd.
Car purchased by Company being used for personal use of its Director - Company is consumer as commercial
purpose not established - 2007(2) CPC 665 N.C.
Car purchased by partnership firm for its business - Purpose being commercial, Firm not a consumer under the
C.P. Act - 1999(1) CPC 694 U.P.
13

Car purchased for commercial purpose by complainant company - Complainant not a consumer - 2001(1) CPC
202 T.N.
Car purchased for commercial use - Consumer jurisdiction is barred in the matter - 1996(2) CPC 577 N.C.
Chicks purchased for resale - Commercial purpose established - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 1996(1) CPC 193
N.C.
Claim cannot be repudiated merely that insurance policy was obtained for an item to be used for commercial
purpose as policy is to cover the insured risk - 2005(2) CPC 666 Chd.
Club not a commercial organisation after verifying Memorandum of Association - Complaint held to be
maintainable - 2006(1) CPC 90 W.B.
Commercial Organisation purchased Mahindra Jeep - Insurance claim rightly repudiated as purchase was for
commercial purpose - 2004(2) CPC 300 Chd.
Complainant being a company alleged deficiency for non supply of machinery by OP - Matter relating to a
commercial purpose does not come under the scope of consumer dispute - 2003(1) CPC 17 N.C.
Complainant claimed huge claim due to defect in Machine - Commercial purpose proved - Relief declined -
1994(2) CPC 59 Pb.
Complainant is consumer where purchased machine found to be defective during warranty period even when
machine was purchased for commercial purpose - 1996(1) CPC 550 W.Bengal
Complainant loanee had employed workers with salary of Rs. 4000 Purchase of goods for commercial purpose
obviously proved - 2003(2) CPC 421 Chd.
Complainant purchased a tipper truck for his self employment - Complaint can be filed under C.P. Act - 1997(1)
CPC 154 N.C.
Complainant regarding defect in tyres of Jeep used by Commission Agent for commercial purpose not
maintainable under Consumer Protection Act - 1998(1) CPC 270 Pb.
Complainant selling goods for commercial purpose - Not a consumer - 1992 CPC 725 Pb.
Complainant taking help of one or two persons in functioning of generator being used for residential and
commercial purposes - Complainant is a consumer - 2004(2) CPC 292 Chd.
Complaint against defect in paper moulding machine for making egg trays - Complainant not a consumer as the
machine was purchased for commercial use - 1994(1) CPC 640 Pb.
--Complaint filed for non-supply of required G.P. Sheets by respondents - Sheets to be used for resale and
commercial purpose - Complaint does not lie under the Act - 1996(1) CPC 11 S.C.
Complaint regarding a machine being used for commercial purpose is not maintainable under the Act - 1991 CPC
136 Kerala
Complaint regarding defect in vehicles - Complainant is owner of fleets of vehicles to be operated by others -
Commercial purpose proved - Complaint dismissed - 2002(1) CPC 545 Meghalaya
Complaint regarding mere performance of contract of commercial nature is not maintainable - 1994(1) CPC 209
Pb.
Complaint relating to reduction in excise duty in car purchase case - Car purchased to ply as taxi which is a
commercial purpose - Complaint held not maintainable - 1999(2) CPC 657 Chd.
Computer machine alleged to be defective was purchased for commercial purpose - Purchaser not a consumer -
1996(2) CPC 27 Chd.
Computer purchased by doctor for earning his livelihood - Purchase not for commercial purpose - 1999(2) CPC 93
Pb.
DA plant purchased for commercial use found to be defective - Complaint not maintainable - 1996(2) CPC 587
N.C.
Dealer cannot escape liability for deficient service if defect is not removed during warranty period even when
goods were purchaser for commercial purpose - 1997(2) CPC 273 Ker.
Defect - Machine purchased found to be defective which was purchased for business purpose - Complainant not a
consumer - 2004(1) CPC 213 C.G.
Defect in Set developed during warranty period - Plea of commercial use is not available - 2004(1) CPC 687 N.C.
Defective - Typewriter purchased for professional work by lawyer - Profession purpose not a commercial purpose
- Complainant held to be a consumer - 1995(1) CPC 228 Delhi
Delay in delivery of machine purchased for resale - Complainant not a consumer - Relief declined - 2003(1) CPC
12 N.C.
--Diagnostic kit purchased for clinic laboratory found to be defective - Purchase for commercial purpose -
Complainant not a consumer - 1997(1) CPC 243 N.C.
14

Diesel Engine purchased for commercial use - Complainant does not come under the definition of a Consumer -
1993 CPC 426 Pb.
Doctor purchased X-Ray machine for small enterprize in small town - Plea of machine being purchased for
commercial use is not tenable - 1996(2) CPC 140 Hr.
Emery stones purchased for factory were found to be defective - Complaint could not be dismissed that purchase
was for commercial purpose - Satish Kumar v. M/s. Master Pipes Stores, 1999(1) CPC 510 Pb.
Equipment in question purchased for commercial purpose - Consumer jurisdiction ousted - 1994(2) CPC 61 Pb.
Evidence should be on record to prove that the product has been purchased for commercial purpose - 2004(2)
CPC 594 H.P.
Father and son using two vehicles separately for their personal use - Vehicle being used for purpose of self
employment - Commercial purpose not proved - 2008(1) CPC 354 N.C.
Goods purchased for commercial purpose found to be defective within guarantee period - Consumer jurisdiction
not ousted - 2008(3) CPC 102 Raj.
Goods purchased for commercial purpose with warranty - Purchaser is a consumer under the Act - 2001(2) CPC
474 N.C.
Goods purchased for earning livelihood do not dome under the definition of commercial purpose - 1995(2) CPC 2
S.C.
Goods purchased for self employment purpose - Commercial purpose not proved - 2003(2) CPC 535 N.C.
Insured tractor though being used for commercial purpose, was damaged while being reversed for parking -
Repudiation of claim not sustainable - 2006(2) CPC 613 H.P.
Insured vehicle taken away by murdering its driver by some criminals - Repudiation of claim without solid proof
of its being used as taxi is unjustified - 2008(1) CPC 192 N.C.
Insurer failed to prove that insured vehicle was being used as commercial van - Repudiation on this ground
unjustified - 2001(1) CPC 5 U.P.
It was not clear whether goods were purchased for commercial purpose or for earning livelihood - Matter remitted
to Distt. Forum for fresh decision - 1997(1) CPC 235 N.C.
Knitting of fabric and providing material for the purpose comes under the commercial purpose - Does not fall
under the definition of service - 1995(1) CPC 279 Delhi
Large number of trees purchased for earning profit damaged due to heavy rain - Purchase not for self consumption
- Complainant is not a consumer - Civil suit is the proper remedy - 2008(2) CPC 590 N.C.
Lessee of truck employing another person as driver - Case does not fall under the category of self-employment -
1998(2) CPC 308 H.P.
Machine could not function despite repeated repairs - Manufacturing defect proved - Plea of purchase for
commercial purpose repelled - 1998(2) CPC 216 W. Bengal
Machine for purchasing coir rope purchased under self employment scheme - At least 10 people were required for
the operation - Purchase for commercial purpose proved - Complainant not a consumer - 2000(2) CPC 657 N.C.
Machine purchased by hospital found to be non-functional during warranty period - Plea of commercial purpose
not available - Complaint is maintainable - 2007(2) CPC 487 N.C.
Machine purchased for automatic exchange by unemployed youth for earning livelihood - Plea of commercial
purpose not tenable - 2000(2) CPC 53 Chd.
Machine purchased for commercial purpose - Comaplinant not a consumer - 2003(1) CPC 417 Chd.
Machine purchased for commercial purpose by a Charitable Missionary Hospital - Complainant not a consumer -
Relief declined - 2000(2) CPC 200 Bihar
Machine purchased for expanding the business - Purchase for commercial purpose - Complaint not maintainable -
1997(2) CPC 274 U.P.
Machine purchased for hospital run by way of self employment - Purchase of machine cannot be said for
commercial purpose - 1997(1) CPC 467 N.C.
--Machinery for retreading of old tyre purchased for self employment of complainant - Plea of commercial purpose
rejected - 2000(2) CPC 258 U.P.
Machinery purchased for commercial purpose found to be defective - Complainant is not a consumer under
Consumer Protection Act - 2004(1) CPC 247 Maha.
Machinery purchased for grape cultivation comes under commercial activity - Relief declined under C.P. Act -
1995(2) CPC 434 N.C.
Machinery purchased for production of book binding clothe - Complainant not a consumer as machine is
purchased for commercial purpose - 1997(1) CPC 102 N.C.
15

Machinery, subject of complaint was purchased for commercial use - Complainant not a consumer - 1991 CPC
619 N.C.
Machines alleged to be defective purchased for commercial purpose - Complainant not a consumer - 2005(1) CPC
619 N.C.
Main function of respondent was to undertake research work under Bureau of Indian Standard Act - Its function
not covered under the terms of commercial purpose. - 2007(1) CPC 686 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect alleged in Tata Bus which was purchased for commercial purpose Complainant not a
consumer Relief declined 2011(2) CPC 441 N.C.
Mere keeping a refrigerator at complainants shop does not amount to purchase of fridge for commercial purpose -
2001(1) CPC 16 U.P.
Mere lodging of F.I.R. and report of surveyors are not substantial evidences to prove use of vehicle for
commercial purpose - 2005(1) CPC 41 Chd.
Mere obtaining Central and Sales Tax Certificate does not convert a Small Scale Industry into a commercial unit -
2002(2) CPC 584 N.C.
Mere raising a plea of commercial purpose without cogent reasons not sufficient for repudiation of insurance
claim - 2001(1) CPC 191 U.P.
Merely carrying some person does not prove the commercial use of the vehicle - 2007(2) CPC 72 Pb.
Moulding machine purchased for self employment and for earning livelihood - Purchaser is a consumer under CP
Act - 2007(1) CPC 8 N.C.
--No supply of raw material for manufacturing of brass utensiles - Purpose of purchase being commercial -
Complaint not maintainable - 2004(1) CPC 124 M.P.
Once deficiency in Internet Service is proved - Plea of its use for commercial purpose is no defence - 2002(1)
CPC 305 Chd.
Photo copier purchased for self employment - Does not fall under the exclusion clause of Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of
the Act - Complaint held to be maintainable - 1995(1) CPC 220 Raj.
Photocopier purchased for resale - Purpose being commercial dispute not covered under Consumer Protection Act
- 1998(2) CPC 47 U.P.
Photocopying machine purchased for copying of registered documents which is a public purpose - The plea of
purchase for commercial purpose not tenable - 2000(1) CPC 312 N.C.
Photostat Machine purchased for self employment - Found to be defective - Complainant held entitled to Rs.
11,000 and removal of defect - Plea of commercial purpose rejected - 1999(2) CPC 457 H.P.
Plea can be taken when goods are purchased - Then consumer jurisdiction is barred - But when service is for
commercial purpose jurisdiction is not barred - 2004(1) CPC 417 N.C.
Plea of commercial purpose is not available where hiring of service is involved in sale of goods - 1999(2) CPC
141 Pb.
Plea of commercial purpose is not tenable where availing of service is involved in the case - 2001(1) CPC 487
Delhi
Plea of commercial purpose not available where element of service is involved - 2002(1) CPC 33 Chd.
Plea of purchase of goods for commercial purpose is not available where element of service for consideration is
involved - 2002(1) CPC 15 Chd.
Poultry Farm being run on small scale for earning livelihood - Cannot be termed as for commercial purpose -
1996(2) CPC 462 N.C.
--Propagation of sikh religion is not a commercial purpose Relief granted for manufacturing defect in vehicle
upheld as complaint was maintainable under C.P. Act 2011(2) CPC 357 N.C.
--Weigh machine purchased from OP did not function properly Machine was purchased for commercial use i.e.
sulphate manufacturing Complainant is not a consumer - 2014(2) CPC 165 N.C.
Power generator purchased for commercial purpose - Complainant not a consumer - 1995(2) CPC 281 N.C.
Preventive medicine purchased for commercial crops - Case not covered under the Consumer Protection Act -
1994(2) CPC 168 N.C.
Printing press purchased for commercial purpose complaint does not lie under C.P. Act - 2000(1) CPC 3 S.C.
--Profit is the main aim to prove a purchase for commercial purpose - If profit is not intended the purpose cannot be
called commercial - 2005(1) CPC 53 N.C.
Projector supplied to CMC failed to function during warranty period - Plea of commercial purpose not acceptable
- OP is liable for deficiency in service - 2008(2) CPC 660 N.C.
16

Proposed purchase of truck was for self employment plea of commercial purpose not tenable as complainant is a
consumer under C.P. Act - 2003(2) CPC 93 Jhar.
Purchase of building for earning profits - Purpose being related to commercial use - Complaint not maintainable
nor complainant is a consumer - 2007(2) CPC 733 N.C.
Purchase of car by partnership firm itself proves that it is purchased for commercial purpose - 1998(1) CPC 488
T.N.
Purchase of chicks for self employment - Consumer jurisdiction not barred - 2000(1) CPC 310 N.C.
Purchase of photostat machine with loan under Rojgar Yojna Self employment proved - Plea of commercial
purpose disallowed - 1998(1) CPC 480 M.P.
Purchase of Ultrasound Machine was held to be for commercial use without discussing rejoinder of party - Order
not sustainable - 1998(2) CPC 165 Pb.
Purchase of Van for commercial purpose is no bar to compensation where defect was detected during warranty
period - 1999(1) CPC 621 H.P.
Purpose of computer system having close nexus with the commercial purpose activities - Matter is not covered
under the Act - 1993 CPC 212 N.C.
Purpose of purchase of paper copier by complainant was to earn his livelihood - Relief cannot be denied alleging
that the purchase was for commercial purpose - 1992 CPC 360 N.C.
Purpose of Ultrasound Scanner for clinic - Requirement does not come under the heading of commercial purpose -
1993 CPC 460 Hr.
Question of commercial purpose arises only in case of purchase of goods - Purchase of shares not covered under
this category - 1999(1) CPC 201 T.N.
Resale of vehicle - Complainant deals in sale and purchase of cars which is a commercial purpose - Civil Courts
has the jurisdiction - 1995(2) CPC 351 Pb.
--Respondent failed to contradict evidence of complainant that Xerox Machine was purchased for earning her
livelihood - Complainant held entitled to relief - 1997(2) CPC 352 N.C.
Respondent failed to take full quantity of Surgarcane as agreed - Complaint being related to a commercial
purpose, is not maintainable - 1993 CPC 814 Pb.
Road Roller purchased for self employment does not come under the headings of Commercial Purpose - 1995(2)
CPC 679 Kerala
Roofing sheets purchased for factory found to be of inferior quality - Purpose being commercial, complaint held
not maintainable - 1998(2) CPC 552 Pb.
Sale of furnace oil to complainant found to be for a commercial purpose - Complaint not maintainable under
Consumer Protection Act - 1993 CPC 367 N.C.
Service is rendered not for making any profit but to improve image on commercial complex - Consumer
jurisdiction not ousted - 2006(2) CPC 27 N.C.
Several cars booked for commercial purpose - Booking cancelled and refund of amount claimed - Consumer
jurisdiction cannot be invoked - 1998(2) CPC 55 Chd.
Statement of complainant about use of tractor for agricultural purpose and Commercial Work - Purpose not
commercial - 1998(1) CPC 183 N.C.
Station Wagon being used for transportation of Tribune Staff - Purchase of vehicle for commercial purpose -
Complainant not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act - 1996(1) CPC 554 Chd.
Supply of plastic strapping machinery for factory - Commercial purpose established - Complaint not maintainable
- 1994(2) CPC 18 N.C.
--The air pollution control system was installed by the opposite party for machinery of commercial nature -
Complaint held not maintainable - 1994(1) CPC 413 N.C.
The communication system being used for business of Hotel - Complaint for removal of defect of system does not
lie under C.P. Act. - 1992 CPC 764 Delhi
The question whether a plant has been installed for commercial purpose or self-employment, depends upon the
evidence of parties - 1996(2) CPC 613 Hr.
The question whether the printing machine was sold to business purpose or not should be decided only by
providing proper opportunity to the parties - 1992 CPC 133 N.C.
The System purchased for better management of business and not for earning livelihood by means of self
employment - Complaint under C.P. Act does not lie - 1995(2) CPC 661 N.C.
Tractor in question being used for agriculture purpose - Question of commercial purpose does not arise - 2008(2)
CPC 380 N.C.
17

Tractor purchased for agriculture purposes - Purchaser not excluded from the definition of a consumer - 1995(2)
CPC 573 Pb.
Truck purchased for commercial purpose - Complainant not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act -
Complaint for refusal to repair the vehicle not maintainable - 1997(1) CPC 282 Hr.
Truck purchased under a Self Employment Scheme for earning livelihood - Purchase not for commercial purpose
- Complaint maintainable - 1998(2) CPC 110 Bihar
Truck with defect being used for commercial purpose - Complaint under C.P. Act not maintainable - 1992 CPC
741 H.P.
Trust doing medical service to rural people - Plea of commercial use of vehicle not acceptable - 1996(1) CPC 484
Raj.
Ultra Sound Machine purchased to earn livelihood by the doctor - Purchase not for commercial purpose - 2001(1)
CPC 48 Chd.
--Ultrasound Machine purchased by retired physician for earning livelihood - Purchase not for commercial purpose -
Complainant maintainable - 2006(1) CPC 262 Uttaranchal
Ultrasound Scanner Machine alleged to be defective, purchased for Nursing Home i.e. Hospital - Purpose being
commercial, complaint does not lie - 1999(1) CPC 51 U.P.
Unless raw material is converted into some goods, it cannot be presumed that raw material was purchased for
commercial purpose - 1997(1) CPC 499 Hr.
Use of machine for commercial purpose as for earning livelihood by employment is a matter of evidence -
1997(1) CPC 231 S.C.
Vehicle alleged to be defective purchased for commercial use - Complainant not a consumer - Relief declined -
1998(1) CPC 6 H.P.
Vehicle purchased for catering business alleged to be defective - Purchase for commercial purpose - Complaint
does not lie - 1998(1) CPC 606 Chd.
Vehicle purchased for commercial purpose - Complaint regarding defect in vehicle not maintainable - 2004(1)
CPC 444 C.G.
Vehicle purchased for earning livelihood using it as a taxi - Plea of commercial purpose cannot prevail - 2000(1)
CPC 129 Chd.
Warranty given for proper service of Computer purchased - Question of purchase for commercial purpose is not
relevant - 2000(1) CPC 278 Ker.
When there is element of service involved in goods purchased for commercial purpose a complaint under
Consumer Protection Act is not barred - 1997(2) CPC 501 Pb.
Where element of service is involved in the case, plea of commercial purpose is not available to opposite party -
2001(1) CPC 499 Ker.
Where hiring of service is involved plea of purchase of vehicle for commercial purpose cannot prevail - 1999(2)
CPC 213 H.P.
Where question of service is involved in purchase of a defective Excavation Loader plea of commercial use is
meaningless - 1999(1) CPC 633 H.P.
Where question of warranty is involved, question of purchase for commercial use became irrelevant - 1999(2)
CPC 256 Chd.
--Where service has been availed of, question of purpose being commercial does not arise - 1999(1) CPC 197 N.C.
Where warranty for proper service of Press Machine was given, relief cannot be declined merely that purchase
was for commercial use - 1999(2) CPC 364 M.P.
Whether the purpose of agreement between the parties is commercial one, the Consumer Forum has no
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - 1992 CPC 213 H.P.
X-ray machine purchased by Medical Centre earning huge profit found to be defective - Commercial purpose
proved - Complaint not maintainable - 2004(2) CPC 190 U.P.
X-Ray machine was alleged to be purchased for self employment - Question of commercial purpose should be
decided on the basis of cogent evidence - 1997(2) CPC 118 N.C.
Commercial use - Complainant working with 4 machines which were allegedly were suffering from
manufacturing defect Case of self employment not proved Commercial use well proved Complaint is not
maintainable 2012(3) CPC 123 N.C.
Commercial work - Statement of complainant about use of tractor for agricultural purpose and Commercial
Work - Purpose not commercial - 1998(1) CPC 183 N.C.
18

Commission agent - Complainant regarding defect in tyres of Jeep used by Commission Agent for commercial
purpose not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act - 1998(1) CPC 270 Pb.
Compensation - 55 RCC pipes loaded in truck were found in broken condition, which were returned to
respondent dealer Respondent directed to refund price of pipes with 9% p.a. interest and costs of Rs. 5,000 - 2009(2)
CPC 478 Pb.
--A sum of Rs. 5,000 as interest for car defect held to be on higher side - Total compensation reduced from Rs.
12,000 to Rs. 6,000 only - 1999(1) CPC 393 Chd.
Air conditioner remained non functioning even after 6 times repairs - Dealer directed to refund total price with
10% interest and costs - 2002(1) CPC 73 Chd.
Air conditioner was not supplied despite full payment - OP directed to refund its price with 18% interest and
compensation of Rs. 12,900 - 2003(2) CPC 472 Pb.
--As per statements of the expert and other witnesses, no manufacturing defect in car proved Order of
Fora below awarding compensation of Rs. 1 lac set aside - 2013(3) CPC 435 N.C.
--Auto analyser purchased from OP failed to function within 15 days of its purchase Refund of machine price with
6% interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000 upheld - 2013(1) CPC 374 N.C.
Auto Cycle with defects remained in possession of complainant for 12 years - Replacement of vehicle not justified
- Compensation of Rs. 5,000 allowed - 2005(1) CPC 504 Delhi
--Award of interest included amount of compensation Further amount of compensation is permissible 2010(1)
CPC 530 N.C.
--Award of interest included amount of compensation Further amount of compensation is permissible
2010(1) CPC 530 N.C.
--Award of Rs. 60,000 for manufacturing defect being on higher side - The sum was reduced to Rs. 36,000 only in
the facts of the case - 2006(2) CPC 474 H.P.
Bakery Making Machine found to be defective - Manufacturer held liable to refund the price with 18% interest
and cost - 2000(1) CPC 530 Pb.
--Block of cylinder had burst and 3 pistons of engine of truck had ceased during warranty period OP directed to
pay compensation of Rs. 97,482 for deficient services Order upheld - 2013(2) CPC 142 N.C.
Burner caused fire in gas cylinder causing injury and damage to household articles - Both dealer and manufacturer
directed to pay Rs. 44,000 - 2005(1) CPC 351 Uttranchal
--Bus body agreed to be delivered in June but delayed upto October, 2008 Vehicle needed for Assembly Election
State Commission directed OP to refund deposited amount of Rs. 20.75 lacs with compensation of Rs. 10 lacs Order
upheld - 2012(2) CPC 496 N.C.
Car dealer directed to pay 18% interest, costs of Rs. 50,000 for non-delivery of car in time - Costs reduced to Rs.
10,000 only - 1999(1) CPC 591 N.C.
Car purchased broke down just after covering 111 Kms. - Serious defects detected - O.P. directed to pay Rs.
21,000 as compensation and costs - 2005(2) CPC 304 Chd.
--Car purchased for huge amount of Rs. 7,67,053 had to be taken to workshop again and again but defects could not
be removed OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with cost of Rs. 10,000 for delivering defective car - 2012(1)
CPC 688 Pb.
--Car purchased from OP suffering several defects causing great harassment to the complainant Compensation of
Rs. 32,000 enhanced to Rs. 82,000 2011(1) CPC 105 N.C.
--Car purchased in open auction sale Petitioner cannot claim warranty for replacement of component
Compensation allowed by State Commission set aside 2010(1) CPC 646 N.C.
--Car purchased in open auction sale Petitioner cannot claim warranty for replacement of component
Compensation allowed by State Commission set aside 2010(1) CPC 646 N.C.
Car purchased suffering from manufacturing defect - Manufacturer (not dealer) directed to refund price of car
with 12% interest and cost Rs. 50,000 - 2001(2) CPC 334 S.C.
Car purchased, having defective break system - Seller is bound to compensate the purchaser - 1992 CPC 249 Goa
Car sent for repairs 33 times within 2 years - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 25,000 for deficiency in service - 2003(2)
CPC 194 Chd.
--Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase OP demanded Rs. 65,000 for removing defect within warranty
period Car was detained for 6 and half years OP directed to refund price of car with interest/cost - 2010(2) CPC 193
Pb.
19

Car with major defect being run for 5 years - Compensation of Rs. 25000 in stead of replacement of vehicle is
justified - 1996(2) CPC 145 Chandigarh
--Chairs purchased from OP proved to be defective Order of Fora below directing OP to replace the chairs or to
pay its price Rs. 6,29,000 with 9% interest, compensation and cost held to be justified - 2012(2) CPC 235 N.C.
--Cold drink bottle contained fungus and particles injurious to health OP was rightly directed to pay compensation
of Rs. 10,000/- with cost of Rs. 1,000/- by District Forum Order upheld Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000
2012(3) CPC 604 Pb.
--Compensation being on higher side Reasonable reduction in compensation amount is justified
2010(1) CPC 704 N.C.
Compensation granted for car defect on higher side - 50% reduction in amount allowed - 2004(2) CPC 525 Chd.
--Compensation in lump sum ordered Payment of interest unjustified 2009(1) CPC 115 N.C.
--Compensation of Rs. 5,000 awarded by Forum after considering proper evidence about defective refrigerator -
Impugned order held to be justified - 2005(2) CPC 493 Chd.
Compensation of Rs. 95,000 for defect in cement allowed without following mandatory procedure of laboratory
test - Order set aside - 2005(1) CPC 538 J & K H.C.
Compensation on higher side awarded by State Commission - Order modified with reasonable reduction - 1997(1)
CPC 238 N.C.
--Complainant failed to prove by cogent evidence that he suffered loss of job on account of breakdown of
lap top Adequate repairs was done by OP Relief of Rs. 30,000 justified Huge claim denied - 2013(3) CPC
451 N.C.
--Complainant had to go repeatedly to workshop for repairs of car Replacement of car declined Compensation of
Rs. 40,000 with cost of Rs. 10,000 allowed - 2012(2) CPC 407 N.C.
--Complainant paid Rs. 30 lacs to OP for repairs of heavy power point which was not done satisfactorily Repairs
got done subsequently at the cost of Rs. 7.5 lacs only OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50 lacs 2011(2) CPC
200 N.C.
Complainant purchased a car which was destroyed in fire along with baggage due to manufacturing defect -
Replacement of car not sufficient - OP directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh with compensation and cost of burnt baggage - 2006(1)
CPC 279 Kar.
Complainant purchased analyzer from O.P. which did not give proper reading even for a single day - O.P. directed
to refund the price alongwith compensation and cost - 2005(2) CPC 553 Kar.
--Complainant suffered deficiency in service on part of injuries due to manufacturing defect in gas stove which was
not replaced despite requests O.P. rightly held liable for payment of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation - 2014(2) CPC 122 Pb.
Complainant suffered dropsy disease on consumption of mustered oil purchased from Ops - Manufacturer and
shopkeeper directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation with cost of Rs. 10,000 - 2006(2) CPC 254 Delhi
--Complainant suffered physical injuries and household items damaged in fire caused by the leakage of gas cylinder
OP being negligent directed to pay compensation of Rs. 348167 to the complainant - 2012(1) CPC 334 N.C.
Complainant was delivered a defective Tata Mobile suffering from several defects - Dealers directed to refund
reduced price of Rs. 1,76,705 with 12% interest with compensation and cost - 2000(2) CPC 543 U.P.
--Complainants husband working as a Director at the age of 46 years when he was crushed due to defect in the lift
which was due to negligence of OP OP No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30148195/- with 9%
interest - 2014(1) CPC 416 N.C.
Computer purchased from Opposite Party failed to function satisfactorily - Opposite Party directed to pay Rs.
5,550 as compensation with cost - Refund of price disallowed - 2005(1) CPC 431 Chd.
Computer purchased not working properly and suffering from various repeated faults - Compensation cannot be
denied for want of expert evidence - 2003(1) CPC 589 Guj.
Computer purchased suffered from various defects - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 23,000 with 14% interest and cost -
2005(1) CPC 667 N.C.
Computer with assembled parts supplied which developed snag - O.P. to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation -
2005(1) CPC 121 Delhi
Computerised semi-auto analyser proved to be defective - Pleas of commercial purpose not proved - OP directed
to refund the price of machine with compensation of Rs. 5,000 - 2003(1) CPC 29 N.C.
Cotton crops were damaged by spurious insecticide - OP directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with cost of
Rs.1100 to complainant - 2007(1) CPC 165 Chd.
Cracks developed in walls of house when Arocone building blocks supplied by O.P. were used - O.P. directed to
pay compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs for supplying goods of substandard quality - 2007(2) CPC 180 N.C.
20

--CT Scanner machine covered under replacement policy stopped functioning during period of policy State
Commission ordered refund of Rs. 915200 with interest and compensation on the basis of terms of policy Impugned
order upheld in appeal - 2014(3) CPC 526 N.C.
Dead fly found in tooth paste - Manufacturer directed to pay Rs. 2000 as compensation - 2000(2) CPC 101 Pb.
Dealer charged enhanced price of car without reason - Directed to refund excess amount with 18% interest and Rs.
10,000 as compensation - 2000(2) CPC 480 M.P.
--Dealer charged excess amount of Rs. 8691 of car - Directed to refund excess amount with 18% p.a. interest -
2000(1) CPC 124 Chd.
Dealer failed to carry repair on computer purchased by complainant - Directed to pay Rs. 7500 as cost and
compensation - 2001(2) CPC 280 Delhi
Dealer guilty of deficiency in service for supplying defective dish antenna - Directed to refund cost of equipment
with 12% interest and expenses - 2005(1) CPC 357 N.C.
Dealer refused to supply accessories with tractor - Complainant held entitled to Rs. 70,065 with 12% interest with
cost of accessories - 2002(2) CPC 606 N.C.
Death caused by leakage of LPG at neck point of cylinder - 3 persons also suffered injuries - OP directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 6,97,176 with interest and costs - Saraswathi (Smt.) v. M/s. Ram Agencies, 2007(1) CPC 88 Kar.
--Death caused due to leakage of gas cylinder when light was switched on as advised by LPG attendant Dealer
alone and not the manufacturer is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lacs including cost of house with 9% interest
2010(1) CPC 576 N.C.
--Defect Generator engine develop during warranty period OP could not show that allegation was mala fide
State Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs Order upheld in revision - 2012(2) CPC 551 N.C.
Defect detected in scooter purchased from OP and could not be rectified despite repairs - OP directed to pay
compensation in lump sum amounting to Rs. 20,000 - 2008(2) CPC 672 N.C.
--Defect found in three wheeler Engine was replaced but defect still subsisting OP directed to refund price of Rs.
1,89,000 with compensation of Rs. 53,000 or replace the vehicle - 2010(2) CPC 676 H.P.
--Defect in certain parts of car rectified by OP dealer - Only payment of adequate compensation and not replacement
of car justified - TATA Motors Limited v. Suraj Kohli, 2006(2) CPC 733 Hr.
Defect in tractor purchased from OP No. 1 and 2 appeared just after purchase - Tractor given for repairs was kept
by OP for 6 years - OP directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000 for loss of subsidy in addition to Rs. 1,69,000 awarded by District
Forum - Manager, Premanchal Motors (P) Ltd. v. Ramdas, 2008(2) CPC 396 M.P.
Defect occurred during warranty period - Replacement of vehicle is not necessary if defect can remove by
replacement of certain parts - Complainant awarded total sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation and cost - 2008(2) CPC 133
N.C.
Defect proved to be manufacturing defect - Dealer and manufacturers both directed to pay compensation of Rs.
60,000 after return of equipment - 2005(1) CPC 174 Pondicherry
Defective bus seat created harassment - Complainant allowed Rs. 1,000 as cost - 2005(1) CPC 582 Raj.
Defective car sold as new one - Defect not removed despite request - Dealer and manufacturer directed to remove
defect and pay compensation of Rs. 90,000 - 2004(1) CPC 438 S.C.
Defective lift installed - Complainants wife fell down from lift sustaining serious injuries - O.P. directed to pay
Rs. 5,50,000 with 9% interest - 2004(2) CPC 672 Maha.
Delay in delivery of car by dealer resulting in huge loss to doctor - Refund of amount with interest and
compensation ordered - 2001(1) CPC 112 Maha.
Delay of 2 years in delivery of car agreed to be given in 14 days - Dealer directed to refund full price with 9%
interest and cost Rs. 25,000 in each case - 2002(1) CPC 155 Chd.
Difference in design of two shoes purchased from dealer who refused to change pair of shoes - Directed to refund
price of shoes with 18% interest and cost Rs. 500 - 2000(1) CPC 489 Chd.
--District Forum allowed compensation of Rs. 10,000 which was reduced to Rs. 5,000 by State Commission without
justification Order of Forum restored 2011(2) CPC 310 N.C.
--District Forum directed OP to replace the tractor suffering from mechanical defect But State Commission
directed OP to carry necessary repairs with compensation of Rs. 35,000 - Impugned order upheld - 2014(3) CPC 378 N.C.
District Forum directed the dealer to pay compensation of Rs. 12,000 to complainant due to defect in sold car-
Impugned order based upon material evidence - Further enhancement in compensation declined - 2001(2) CPC 163 Chd.
--District Forum ordered replacement of engine of vehicle with compensation of Rs. 40,000/- instead of replacement
of whole vehicle as prayed Impugned Order justified Appeal dismissed with costs 2011(1) CPC 641 U.P.
21

--Engine of bus stopped to function within one month of its purchase OP directed to replace its engine with
enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 - 2012(1) CPC 496 H.P.
Enhancement in compensation for computer defect without evidence in unwarranted - 2004(2) CPC 364 Chd.
Entire engine assembly of scooter changed by dealer - Complainant awarded Rs. 10,000 for suffering mental
agony - 2002(1) CPC 298 Chd.
--Fiat Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase Trouble continued even after replacement of engine OP
dealer directed to refund Rs. 6,69,187 price of car with life time tax and installments paid with 12% interest to
complainant 2011(1) CPC 39 S.C.
Fridge purchase by complainant found to be of low quality - Opposite party directed to refund the price of fridge -
2001(1) CPC 16 U.P.
Fridge purchased found suffering from minor defect - Compensation of Rs. 1500 is recoverable - Replacement
declined as there was no manufacturing defect - 2004(1) CPC 72 Chd.
--Harvester Combine purchased with one year warranty It was found with some faulty components OP directed
to pay compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs with 9% p.a. interest 2011(1) CPC 430 N.C.
Inverters defect could not be removed despite repeated attempts - Complainant entitled to replacement of inverter
with warrantee or refund of price with 18% interest - 2000(2) CPC 683 Kerala
It is not correct that when accidented vehicle got repaired from authorized dealer then insurer would be liable for
its full amount - 2006(2) CPC 133 Pb.
Laparoscopy set purchased from OP proved to be defective - OP directed to pay Rs. 1,88,843 with 10% interest
plus Rs. 50,000 as compensation - 2007(2) CPC 221 N.C.
--Leakage of water during rainy season from beading of wind screen of vehicle could not be said to be
manufacturing defect - Compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded for the loss, inconvenience and harassment - 2009(1) CPC
231 N.C.
Lift installed by OP snapped resulting in fracture of both legs of complainant - Respondent directed to pay Rs.
2.50 lacs with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 5,000 - 2003(2) CPC 502 N.C.
--Loading machine purchased for Rs. 4,95,000 found to be defective Order of State Commission directing refund
of full price with Rs. 50,000 as compensation is justified - 2009(1) CPC 195 N.C.
--Loading machine, purchased with the help of Bank loan suffered with manufacturing defect Loan could
not be paid Bank repossessed machine Bank cannot be ordered to pay entire cost with margin money
Manufacturer was directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs in lump sum - 2013(3) CPC 107 N.C.
Machine found to be defective within warranty period - OP directed to pay total amount of Rs. 1,75,000 for loss
caused to petitioner - 2006(1) CPC 158 N.C.
--Machine of Electro Copier purchased for Rs. 90,000/- failed to function properly OP directed to pay
price of machine with 9% p.a. interest and costs 2010(1) CPC 664 N.C.
Machine purchased for building repair found to be defective not returned by OP for ten years - OP directed to
refund its price with 10% interest and compensation of Rs. 20,000 - 2006(2) CPC 292 N.C.
--Machine purchased from O.P. proved to be defective but allegation of cheating and fraud not proved as
complainant was responsible for contributory negligence However compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 allowed for causing
mental agony to complainant by O.P - 2014(3) CPC 229 N.C.
Machine purchased from OP did not work even after repairs - Replacement of machine or payment of Rs. 93,165
with 6% interest upheld - 2007(1) CPC 431 N.C.
Machine purchased having manufacturing defect detected during warranty period - Dealer directed to pay cost
incurred on repair with 9% interest - 2002(1) CPC 644 N.C.
--Machinery and equipment supplied by OP proved to be defective Order of Fora below awarding compensation of
Rs. 42.70 lacs with cost of Rs. 1 lacs found to be justified payable by the appellant /OP Order upheld - 2013(1) CPC 131
S.C.
Machinery retained by Industrial Dev. Corp. was found missing on handing over to complainant - OP directed to
pay Rs. 2,62,375 with 12% interest - 2002(2) CPC 172 N.C.
--Machinery supplied for installation of plant not functioned satisfactorily - Opposite Party directed to refund price
with 12% interest and compensation of Rs. 4,000 - 2004(2) CPC 272 Uttaranchal
--Main dispute between the parties revolved around the question of payment of repair charges of Rs. 17,000 instead
of manufacturing defect Order of replacement of vehicle set aside Compensation of Rs. 2 lacs only awarded - 2012(2)
CPC 1 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect in vehicle well established State Commission directed to replace the car or refund the price
of car with 6% interest alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost Rs. 2,000 2010(1) CPC 101 N.C.
22

--Manufacturing defect in vehicle well proved as defect could not be removed despite repeated repairs Dealer and
manufacturer jointly and severely liable to compensate the complainant - 2009(2) CPC 55 N.C.
--Maruti Vehicle purchased from OP found to be suffering manufacturing defect OP directed to pay compensation
of Rs. 3 lacs Order of replacement passed by District Forum modified - 2014(1) CPC 156 N.C.
--Material of inferior quality used in construction work - Order of Fora below awarding compensation of Rs.
5,50,000 with 9% interest justified - 2012(1) CPC 487 N.C.
Material purchased for suit found to be defective - Dealer directed to pay cost of material with stitching charges
and Rs. 500 as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 550 Chd.
Mobile defect not rectified after receiving Rs. 650 - Opposite Party directed to refund charges with Rs. 1,200 -
2004(2) CPC 203 Chd.
Mobile set stopped to function in months after purchase - Respondent directed to refund price of handset with
compensation of Rs. 5000 - 2007(1) CPC 175 Chd.
--Motor cycle purchased was found to be defective - Both manufacturer and dealer held liable jointly and severally
to pay the price of motorcycle to complainant - 2002(1) CPC 651 N.C.
Municipal Corporation gave water connection with insufficient water on 3rd application - Compensation raised
from Rs. 500 to 1,000 payable by Municipality - 2005(1) CPC 638 Delhi
Music system purchased from OP found to be defective - Directed O.P. to remove with cost and compensation -
2003(1) CPC 415 Chd.
No action was taken on complaint regarding defect in cylinder/regulator - Complainants daughter had died in fire
accident caused by cylinders defect - Dealer and manufacturer are liable to deficiency in service - Compensation of Rs.
70,000 with cost Rs. 4,000 justified - 2008(2) CPC 682 N.C.
--No dealership was given despite payment of advance money - OP directed to refund deposits with compensation
and cost of Rs. 15,000 - 2003(2) CPC 261 N.C.
No major defect was found in car as alleged - Replacement of car declined - Reasonable compensation allowed -
1999(2) CPC 220 Chd.
Non supply of computer despite payment - Dealer liable to refund price with compensation and cost - 2005(1)
CPC 640 T.N.
O.P. dealer detaining complainant tractor for 22 days for a petty balance amount of Rs. 1,422 O.P. directed to pay
Rs. 8,000 as compensation - 2004(1) CPC 502 M.P.
O.P. directed to pay Rs. 55,000 for supplying defective plant and machinery - Order upheld - However interest
reduced 18% to 15% - 2003(2) CPC 82 N.C.
O.P. refused to provide channel De-coders despite receiving payment for the same - O.P. directed to provide the
channel with compensation of Rs. 1 lac - 2005(2) CPC 323 N.C.
O.P. supplied computer spare part proved to be defective - O.P. liable to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation - 2004(1)
CPC 197 Maha.
OP dealer delayed delivery of gas connection compelling complainant to purchase gas stove - Release of
connection with compensation of Rs. 2500 directed by District Forum - 2003(1) CPC 667 Chd.
OP dealer prepared false documents in collusion with bank official showing delivery of tractor to complainant -
Directed to refund cost with 18% interest and Rs. 10,000 as compensation - 2003(2) CPC 154 Raj.
--OP delivered old machines which proved to be defective Complainant made payment of Rs. 1,50,000 by getting
a loan OP directed to replace old machines with penal cost and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh - 2009(1) CPC 152 H.P.
--OP did not supply second gas cylinder to the complainant despite letter from IOC, even first cylinder was stopped
Fora below directing supply of second gas cylinder with compensation of Rs. 10,000 with cost of Rs. 2,000 justified -
2012(1) CPC 215 N.C.
--OP removed minor defects of tractor when complainant approached for this purpose Tractor was not taken from
workshop even after repair Order of refund of price for manufacturing defect quashed Only compensation of Rs.
50,000/- allowed 2009(3) CPC 373 Pb.
--OP sold old car to the complainant alleging that it was a new one Complainant duly proved his case OP
directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs with 9% interest as compensation 2011(1) CPC 511 N.C.
Opposite Party never shown apathy in changing defective part of T.V. Set - Reduction in compensation allowed -
2004(2) CPC 114 C.G.
Opposite party provided defective awning terrace and canopies likely to give in high wind blows - Complainant
held entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000 - Arvinder Singh Chawla v. Shri Kullbhushan, 2000(2) CPC 601 Pb.
--OPs directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,66,550 for loss caused due to gas leakage due to negligence of OP
employees Contract between parties cannot be denied Impugned order upheld - 2014(3) CPC 30 N.C.
23

Order of State Commission awarding compensation of 6 lakh for defect in vehicle not based on solid evidence -
Matter remanded for fresh consideration - 2000(1) CPC 605 N.C.
Order placed for pine apple cake but it was found to chocolate cake not giving good taste to guests - Dealer
directed to pay Rs. 250 plus Rs. 480 instead of Rs. 1,000 - 1998(2) CPC 127 Chd.
Packet of Surf found to be 965 grams against 1 Kg as promised - Manufacturer made to pay Rs. 1150 as
compensation - 2002(1) CPC 252 Pb.
Pager Company directed to pay Rs. 5,000 for defective service - Amount reduced to Rs. 1,500 only - 1999(2) CPC
151 Pb.
--Paint on the trolly was defective and the iron sheet was also rusted Failure to give any satisfactory explanation by
the appellant Compensation increased from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 20,000 - 2009(2) CPC 180 Pb.
Participant in a dinner, arranged by hotel developed dyrehoea and fever due to substandard and stale food - Hotel
directed to pay Rs. 11,000 as compensation and cost of Rs. 15,000 - 2008(2) CPC 430 N.C.
--Petitioner failed to prove that an old car with painted body was supplied to him by OP Replacement of vehicle
unjustified A lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000 upheld - 2012(2) CPC 371 N.C.
PGI claimed Rs. 5 lacs for supplying substandard phenyle by dealer - Rs. 5000 and refund of price held as just
compensation - 2002(1) CPC 53 Chd.
Plea of estoppel does not apply where latent defect in a building is checked even after a period of 5 years -
1998(1) CPC 336 W.Bengal
Problem remained in speedometer and engine despite repairs - OP directed to replace the defective items or to pay
Rs. 15,000 with 12% p.a. interest - 2003(1) CPC 237 Chd.
--Rear axle of truck had broken down which was replaced by OP free of cost Vehicle not suffering from
manufacturing defect Compensation of Rs. 61,691/- awarded by Fora below set aside - 2011(3) CPC 110 N.C.
Refrigerators defect could not be removed even after replacement of its Motor - Dealer directed to pay for Relay
System with compensation of Rs. 5,000 - 1999(2) CPC 157 Pb.
Refund of 75% price of defective air conditioner after 11 months held to be justified - 1997(2) CPC 427 Chd.
Remote cause for giving compensation can not be taken into consideration - 1998(1) CPC 476 A.P.
Replacement of defective printer effected - No more compensation can be allowed - 1998(1) CPC 350 Hr.
--Replacement of gear box and carburettor but defect not still removed - Order of District Forum awarding
compensation/cost of Rs. 8,000 upheld - Bhatia Motors v. Mrs. C.K. Mahajan, 2004(2) CPC 392 Chd.
Respondent agreed to repair accidented car at Rs. 12,350 Repairs not done satisfactorily - Directed to pay Rs.
3,000 as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 556 Chd.
Respondent studded inferior quality of red coral instead of valuable stone in gold ring - Respondent liable to pay
price of stone with compensation of Rs. 14,400 - 2007(2) CPC 74 Chd.
Seller refusing to handover papers of sold car - Directed to give papers alongwith Rs. 10,000 as compensation to
purchaser - K.K. Jetly v. Shri Kamal Sharma, 2001(1) CPC 102 Chd.
Several defects in Indica car purchased for Rs. 2,93,125 appeared within one year - Replacement of engine with
compensation of Rs. 15,000 upheld - 2005(1) CPC 108 Delhi
Several defects in new Maruti Car appeared during warranty period - Compensation raised from Rs. 5,000 to Rs.
20,000 - Dr. Sanjeev Bhagat v. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2002(2) CPC 566 Pb.
Several manufacturing defects appeared within few days after purchase of car - Opposite Party directed to pay
75% of price of car with compensation - Fiat India Private Limited v. Dr. Richa Goel, 2005(1) CPC 569 Chd.
--Shoes purchased from OP found to be defective as there was cracking in one of shoes OP directed to replace the
shoes or refund its price with compensation of Rs. 1500 2010(1) CPC 551 Chd.
--Some parts of new tractor kept with OP for repairs were found missing Dealer directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- in
lump sum to the complainant as damages - 2009(2) CPC 273 N.C.
Stabilizer purchased was found to be defective - Direction for refund of its price with 18% interest and Rs. 2,000
as compensation justified - 2002(2) CPC 417 N.C.
--Suit not stitched properly by O.P. tailors - O.P. directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,400 with 10% interest -
2004(2) CPC 380 Raj.
Sum of Rs. 50,000 for car defect found to be on higher side - Reduced to Rs. 20,000 only - 2004(1) CPC 89 Chd.
T.V. purchased found to be defective - Defect not removed after repairs - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as
compensation - 2004(2) CPC 580 Bihar
T.V. Set alleged to be defective after 5-6 years - Necessary depreciation in price should be made for calculation of
compensation - 2000(1) CPC 683 Pb.
24

The mere apprehanded jeopardy to life by an automobile accident is not compensatable in the consumer
jurisdiction - 1994(1) CPC 359 Hr.
The year of manufacturing was 1994 but was wrongly quoted as 1996 - Vehicle suffering from manufacturing
defect - OP directed to refund its price with 12% interest with Rs. 5000 compensation - 2003(2) CPC 319 Pb.
--Three wheelers purchased from OP suffered from manufacturing defect as its chasis were damaged very soon OP
directed to replace the chasis and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation 2012(3) CPC 127 N.C.
Tipper Truck, found to be defective covering more distance at the time of passing of order - 1/3 of compensation
reduced in appeal due to subsequent coverage - 1997(2) CPC 8 S.C.
--Tractor purchased from OP proved to be defective - Both manufacturer and dealer directed to refund its price with
compensation of Rs. 55,000/- with cost 2010(1) CPC 490 N.C.
--Tractor purchased from OP suffering from defect in engine and other important parts which could not be got
registered due to its defect OP directed to refund total price with 9% interest and to pay compensation/cost of Rs. 25,000
2010(1) CPC 444 Pb.
--Tractor purchased from OP was suffering from snag of manufacturing defect Refund of tractor price
with 9% interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000 justified - 2013(1) CPC 330 H.P.
Tractor suffered from various defects which could not be removed - Opposite Party directed to pay compensation
Rs. 26,000 and remove the defects - H.M.T. Limited v. Ramesh Kumar, 2005(1) CPC 585 Chd.
--Truck engine started giving trouble within one month of its purchase Petitioner was rightly ordered to replace the
vehicle or to refund its price with interest compensation and cost Order upheld - 2014(2) CPC 215 N.C.
--Two bottles with same quality and quantity of mineral water costing at Rs. 15/- and 8/- respectively OP Kinley
Company failed to give satisfactory reply OP directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation - 2009(2) CPC 626 Kar.
--Ultrasound machine valued Rs. 13 lacs failed to function properly Concurrent findings of Fora below directing
OP to pay Rs. 5,20,000 with compensation of Rs. 50,000 justified Objection of mishandling of machine repelled -
2012(2) CPC 364 N.C.
Undue delay in delivery of Road Roller - Complainant entitled to 18% interest with compensation of Rs. 10,000 -
1995(2) CPC 679 Kerala
--Various machines supplied by OP proved to be defective OP failed to carry repairs during warranty period OP
directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 42.70 lacs for negligence in rendering service - 2012(1) CPC 317 N.C.
--Vehicle purchased for Rs. 16 lacs developed defect after covering 34431 Kms Manufacturing defect well proved
Replacement of engine instead of vehicle after 10 years with Rs. 5 lacs compensation with cost held to be adequate
relief - 2012(2) CPC 357 Pb.
Vehicle purchased found to be defective and was still lying with O.P. for repairs - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs
as price of vehicle with litigation cost Rs. 2,500 - 2005(2) CPC 573 U.P.
Vehicle purchased proved to be defective - Refund of price with 15% interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000
upheld - 2005(2) CPC 427 N.C.
Verbal guarantee given for furniture perfection - Furniture eaten into within 10 days of purchase by termiate -
Refund of price with 9% interest and Rs. 1500 ordered - R.J. Trading Co. v. Mr. Saurab Bishnoi, 2003(1) CPC 482 Chd.
When interest on amount is granted, compensation in other form is not justified - 1999(1) CPC 444 Pb.
Where interest in the form of compensation is awarded, other compensation need not be awarded - Essar Cell
Phone v. Harpreet Singh, 1999(1) CPC 461 Pb.
Wife aged 30 years, with Mechanical degree disabled due to burst of pressure cooker - Compensation of Rs.
1,38,000 justified - 1996(2) CPC 591 N.C.
Work of air conditioning unit was not completed despite payment of 25% amount - OP directed to complete the
work within one month and pay Rs. 5000 as compensation - 2002(2) CPC 573 Pb.
--Worms were found in packets of powder manufactured by OP who produced no certificate of competent authority
Compensation of Rs. 15,000 and cost Rs. 20,000 for legal aid account upheld - 2010(3) CPC 268 N.C.
Wrong alignment and defect in crank and rear wheel - O.P. liable to pay Rs. 6,000 as cost and compensation -
Manufacturing defect not proved, so no replacement of vehicle - 2004(2) CPC 284 Chd.
Xerox machine purchased by complainant found to be defective as per report of experts - OP directed to pay cost
of machine with 12% interest - H.C.L. Ltd. v. Krishna Xerox Service, 2002(2) CPC 183 W.Bengal
Xerox machine was purchased by complainant at higher price found to be defective - Dealer directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 5000 - 2002(1) CPC 129 A.P.
X-Ray Machine found to be defective - Seller directed to replace the machine and to pay Rs. 25000 as
compensation - 1996(2) CPC 140 Hr.
25

Compensation/cost OPs sold vehicle prepared by assembling parts of old vehicles Manufacturing defect
well established OPs directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 with cost of Rs. 45,000 - 2014(3) CPC 79 N.C.
Compensation/Interest - Leakage continued from refrigerator even after repairs - O. P. directed to refund the
price with 18% interest - 2004(2) CPC 478 T.N.
Complainant - Complainant hammered dickey himself - Dealer not liable for dicky defect - 2003(1) CPC 251
Chd.
--Merely that complainant had closed his business in 2008, it cannot be inferred that complainant was earning his
livelihood by self employment Complainant is not a consumer - 2014(3) CPC 392 N.C.
Complainant at fault - Defect in vehicle due to lack of maintenance on the part of complainant who
did not avail even free service of vehicle OP not at fault- Relief declined - 2013(1) CPC 250 N.C.
Complaint Complaint filed by partner of a firm is legally maintainable 2010(1) CPC 664 N.C.
--Propagation of sikh religion is not a commercial purpose Relief granted for manufacturing defect in vehicle
upheld as complaint was maintainable under C.P. Act 2011(2) CPC 357 N.C.
--Software purchased by the complainant as an M. D. of the company and not as an individual Complainant is not
a consumer nor the complaint is maintainable - 2014(1) CPC 391 N.C.
Computer - Apple Disk Computer alleged to be defective was purchased for commercial use - Complainant not
a consumer under the Act - 1994(2) CPC 576 N.C.
Commercial purpose - Purchaser of computer system having close nexus with the commercial activities - Matter is
not covered under the Consumer Protection Act - 1993 CPC 212 N.C.
--Complainant failed to prove defect in computer by any cogent evidence - No manufacturing defect proved - Relief
declined - 1998(1) CPC 114 Bihar
Complainant purchased computer from respondent which did not work satisfactorily - Dealer directed to refund
full price with 12% interest and costs Rs. 1,100 - 1999(2) CPC 243 Chd.
Computer purchased by complainant found to be defective - Dealer directed to compensate the consumer -
2002(1) CPC 38 Chd.
Computer purchased found to be defective - Respondent directed to refund its price with compensation - 1994(2)
CPC 698 N.C.
Computer stopped functioning as no guidance was given by the respondent - Complainant held entitled to relief -
1993 CPC 139 N.C.
--Concurrent finding against charging of excess price of computer - Relief rightly declined - Revision dismissed -
2003(2) CPC 55 N.C.
Dealer failed to supply software with Computer package as agreed - Held liable to pay Rs. 20,000 as
compensation to complainant - 1994(2) CPC 176 Delhi
Non supply of colour monitor - OP failed to supply colour monitor after receiving full amount of Rs. 1,32,000 for
the computer - Directed to refund full price with 15% interest - 2002(2) CPC 584 N.C.
Non supply of computer despite payment - Dealer liable to refund price with compensation and cost - 2005(1)
CPC 640 T.N.
The mere fact that computer is PC (Personal Computer) does not mean that it is not made for a commercial
purpose (Minority view) - 1994(2) CPC 698 N.C.
Warranty given for proper service of Computer purchased - Question of purchase for commercial purpose is not
relevant - T.J. Joy v. Spectra System, 2000(1) CPC 278 Ker.
Computer chairs Chairs purchased from OP proved to be defective Order of Fora below directing OP to
replace the chairs or to pay its price Rs. 6,29,000 with 9% interest, compensation and cost held to be justified - 2012(2)
CPC 235 N.C.
Computer defect - Appellant failed to controvert allegation of complainant that computer sold by O.P. was
defective - Replacement of computer or refund of price with interest justified - 2005(2) CPC 376 Hr.
--Complainant cannot prove by using plural term that four computers were submitted for repair Award of
compensation for one computer set amounting to Rs. 30,000 instead of Rs. 1,20,000 justified - 2013(3) CPC
604 N.C.
--Complainant alleged defect in computer which was assembled item sold with warranty of repair only -
Compensation not permissible to complainant - 2002(1) CPC 254 Pb.
26

Computer in question found with a manufacturing defect which could not be removed by repairs - O.P. directed to
refund 75% of price with compensation and cost - 2005(1) CPC 180 Chd.
Computer purchased for Rs. 94,400 found to be defective showing repeated fault - Appellant dealer directed to
refund the price with 10% interest - 2003(1) CPC 589 Guj.
Computer purchased from O.P. failed to function properly - O.P. directed to make computer functional with
warranty or refund its price with cost - 2006(1) CPC 117 Chd.
Computer purchased from Opposite Party failed to function satisfactorily - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 5,550 as
compensation with cost - Refund of price disallowed - 2005(1) CPC 431 Chd.
Computer purchased to help children in their studies and also for commercial use - Complainant is a consumer
under C.P. Act - 2005(1) CPC 667 N.C.
Computer with assembled parts supplied which developed snag - O.P. to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation -
2005(1) CPC 121 Delhi
Dealer failed to carry repair on computer purchased by complainant - Directed to pay Rs. 7500 as cost and
compensation - 2001(2) CPC 280 Delhi
Defect occurred after expiry of service contract - Dealer not liable to compensate - 1997(1) CPC 427 N.C.
Defect proved to be manufacturing defect - Dealer and manufacturers both directed to pay compensation of Rs.
60,000 after return of equipment - 2005(1) CPC 174 Pondicherry
Defects appeared in Hard-disc during warranty period - Opposite Parties directed to replace Hard-disc with
compensation and costs - 2005(1) CPC 620 Chhattisgarh
Enhancement in compensation for computer defect without evidence in unwarranted - 2004(2) CPC 364 Chd.
Computer machine - Allegation and counter allegation regarding repairs of computer machine - Matter being
complicated remedy lies in Civil Court - 2001(1) CPC 160 W.Bengal
Computer machine alleged to be defective was purchased for commercial purpose - Purchaser not a consumer -
1996(2) CPC 27 Chd.
Parts of Computer machine damaged due to high voltage spike - Complainant was entitled to replacement of parts
- Madras Institute of Development Studies v. Pragati Computers Private Ltd., 1991 CPC 586 T.N.
Computer price - Excess computer price charged by opposite party dealer - Complainant entitled to refund
additional amount with compensation from the dealer - 2002(1) CPC 675 Maha.
Computer purchase - O.P. delayed supply of computer despite payment of necessary amount - Complainant
held entitled to refund with 12% interest - Thapson Efficiency System v. Ish Kumar, 2006(1) CPC 175 Hr.
No supply of computer by manufacturer in violation of contract - Manufacturer and not dealer is liable for
deficiency in service - 1999(2) CPC 530 Pb.
--Four computers purchased for Rs. 2,03,400 - Computers not supplied even after receipt of cheque OP directed to
supply computers or refund total amount with 12% p.a. interest - 2009(2) CPC 548 Pb.
Computer repair - No cogent evidence was produced to prove that service of OP for repair of computer were
hired by complainant - Relief declined - Rohtas Saini v. D.D. Taneja, 2007(1) CPC 171 Chd.
Computer spare parts - O.P. supplied computer spare part proved to be defective - O.P. liable to pay Rs.
5,000 as compensation - 2004(1) CPC 197 Maha.
Computer system - Computer system purchased for commercial use found to be defective - Complainant not a
consumer - 1996(1) CPC 350 N.C.
--Alleged damage to computer system due to defect in internet connection by explosion not proved by evidence
Complainant is not entitled to any relief - 2014(3) CPC 417 N.C.
Computers fault - Incorrect bill sent to consumer due to computers fault - Deficiency in service proved -
1994(1) CPC 627 Delhi
Computerised analyser - Computerised semi-auto analyser proved to be defective - Pleas of commercial
purpose not proved - OP directed to refund the price of machine with compensation of Rs. 5,000 - 2003(1) CPC 29 N.C.
Concerned purpose - Vehicle developed defect during warrant period - Plea of commercial purpose not
available to O.P. - 2008(1) CPC 135 H.P.
Concurrent finding - Defective chasis of commercial vehicle not changed for long time OP rightly directed
to change the chasis Relief granted by the concurrent findings upheld 2012(3) CPC 68 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect in car alleged after three years covering distance of 60000 KM Concurrent findings given
against petitioner OP not liable for any deficiency in service Revision dismissed 2012(3) CPC 206 N.C.
27

Consumer - A Cielo car purchased for companys business was found to be defective - Complainant not a
consumer under the C.P. Act - 1997(2) CPC 564 Chd.
A person paying price of car not delivered in time, is entitled to file a complaint as consumer - 1999(2) CPC 16
Pb.
A person purchasing a vehicle for plying it as a taxi is a consumer as purchase is for earning a livelihood - Suresh
Kanjani v. M/s. Fairdeal Marwar Garrage Pvt. Ltd., 2001(2) CPC 652 M.P.
A sub-dealer is a consumer qua the main supplier and distributor of Gas supply - 1999(1) CPC 477 Pb.
A truck purchased for earning livelihood found to be defective - Complainant held to be a consumer - 1998(1)
CPC 506 Chd.
An Institution earning huge profit is not a Consumer - Complaint against defective X-ray machine dismissed -
2004(2) CPC 190 U.P.
Commercial use - Complaint against defective vehicles which were to be used for commercial purposes -
Complaint not entertainable - 1991 CPC 329 Delhi
Commercial use - Fuel purchased for tempo, was found defective - Complainant held entitled to relief even if the
tempo is being used for commercial purpose - 1991 CPC 111 Maha.
Complainant entered into franchise agreement for earning livelihood - Complainant is a consumer - OP directed to
pay compensation for supplying defective equipments - 2008(2) CPC 535 N.C.
--Complainant working with 4 machines which were allegedly were suffering from manufacturing defect Case of
self employment not proved Commercial use well proved Complaint is not maintainable 2012(3) CPC 123 N.C.
Complaint against defective machine purchased for self-employment - Complainant is a Consumer - 2004(2)
CPC 233 N.C.
Complaint regarding defect in vehicles - Complainant is owner of fleets of vehicles to be operated by others -
Commercial purpose proved - Complaint dismissed - 2002(1) CPC 545 Meghalaya
Consumer Fora cannot be treated as dealer or trader under the Act - Complaint does not lie against District Forum
- 2000(1) CPC 212 A.P.
Defect in goods purchased for commercial purpose developed within warranty period - Complainant is a
consumer - 2007(2) CPC 578 N.C.
Demand of refund of amount sent for purchase of Total Sleeping System (TSS) - Complainant is a consumer
under the Act - 2003(2) CPC 535 N.C.
--Full hall hired for computer society in 1998 suffered from defect with leakage in roof and defect in air conditioning
detected Compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 is justified - 2009(1) CPC 544 N.C.
Goods purchased by complainant for further resale - Complainant not a consumer under the Act - 1997(1) CPC
328 Pb.
Goods purchased for commercial purpose with warranty - Purchaser is a consumer under the Act - 2001(2) CPC
474 N.C.
Goods purchased for resale purpose found to be defective - Purchaser not a consumer under CP Act - 2008(3)
CPC 31 N.C.
Machine purchased by complainant being operated by him with help of his son - Complainant is a consumer as
machines were being used for self employment - 2002(1) CPC 644 N.C.
Machinery purchased for commercial purpose by Charitable Institution - Institution not a consumer - 2000(1) CPC
52 S.C.
Machinery purchased for manufacturing Dies which is a commercial purpose - Complainant does not come under
the term Consumer under the Act - 1992 CPC 548 Delhi
Machinery purchased with the help of loan for self-employment - Complainant held to be a consumer - 2008(1)
CPC 622 N.C.
--Vehicle alleged to be defective sold during pendency of consumer proceedings Complainant ceased to be a
consumer Defect not proved by any expert Relief granted by the State Commission set aside - 2014(1) CPC 161 N.C.
Machines alleged to be defective purchased for commercial purpose - Complainant not a consumer - 2005(1) CPC
619 N.C.
One of some of bags containing defective cement supplied to the complainant - Complaint held maintainable
under the Act - 1991 CPC 392 Delhi
Purchaser of nitrogen generator for commercial purpose - Defect detected during warrantee period - Purchaser is a
consumer under C. P. Act - 2006(2) 449 CPC N.C.
28

--Transfer of vehicle alleged to be defective during pendency of appeal without permission of Court
Appellant/Complainant cannot considered to be a consumer and is not entitled to any relief under C.P. Act -
2013(3) CPC 166 N.C.
Consumer and Traders - A supplier of furniture, not a consumer - The statute is for the consumer - Not for
traders or manufacturers - Gujrat Mahal Delux (M/s.) v. Deputy Commissioner, 1995(1) CPC 358 Hr.
Consumer dispute Dispute relating to dealership of vehicle does not come under the ambit of consumer
dispute Complaint under C.P. Act is not maintainable - 2014(1) CPC 78 N.C.
Consumer service Petitioner/OP supplied bad quality of engine oil causing defect in engine Fora below
rightly granted relief as petitioner had not appeared before consumer authorities Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC
321 N.C.
Consumer/complaint Complaint is maintainable when deficiency in supply of spare parts of machinery was
not made promptly Though complainants are not consumer due to engagement in commercial activities by using heavy
machinery i.e. earthmovers - 2012(2) CPC 377 N.C.
Contributory negligence - Machine purchased from O.P. proved to be defective but allegation of cheating
and fraud not proved as complainant was responsible for contributory negligence However compensation of Rs.
2,50,000 allowed for causing mental agony to complainant by O.P. - 2014(3) CPC 229 N.C.
Coolers defect - The mere allegation that the cooler was not totally noiseless does not prove that the item is
defective - Om Parkash of Rewari v. Savera Electronics, Rewari, 1993 CPC 127 Hr.
Copier machine - Copier machine purchased under a loan scheme found to be defective - OP directed to refund
the price with interest - 2006(1) CPC 424 N.C.
Copier machine, purchased for earning livelihood, was found to be defective - Complainant held entitled to
compensation - 1994(1) CPC 212 Pb.
Machine could not function despite repeated repairs - Manufacturing defect proved - Plea of purchase for
commercial purpose repelled - 1998(2) CPC 216 W. Bengal
Cost - Instead of removing the defect of machine through mechanic OP repudiated the claim Order of
Consumer Fora granting adequate relief upheld Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000 2012(3) CPC 366 N.C.
Cross examination Cross-examination in consumer proceedings is not a rule but an exception Provision of
Civil Procedure Code not applicable in extenso 2009(1) CPC 582 Guj.
Cylinder/regulator defect - No action was taken on complaint regarding defect in cylinder/regulator -
Complainants daughter had died in fire accident caused by cylinders defect - Dealer and manufacturer are liable to
deficiency in service - Compensation of Rs. 70,000 with cost Rs. 4,000 justified - 2008(2) CPC 682 N.C.
Damage by Battery - No documentary evidence produced to have damaged car by improper installation of
battery - Relief declined - 2004(1) CPC 365 Chd.
Damage to hair - Defective shampoo purchased from OP caused extensive damage to hair of poor girl OP
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for unfair trade practice - 2014(3) CPC 121 N.C.
Date of manufacturing OP sold vehicle showing wrong date of manufacturing Only dealer and not the
manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant - 2012(1) CPC 524 N.C.
Dealer/Manufacturer - A dealer acting as an agent of a manufacturer, cannot be held liable for breach for
contract by manufacturer - 1999(2) CPC 530 Pb.
Machine purchased from dealer found to be defective - Impleadment of manufacturer is not necessary - 2001(1)
CPC 48 Chd.
Dealers fault Some parts of new tractor kept with OP for repairs were found missing Dealer directed to pay
Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum to the complainant as damages - 2009(2) CPC 273 N.C.
Dealers Liability - A car booked through authorised dealer from Gurgaon to Bhopal was damaged in an
accident - Dealer held liable to compensate the complainant - 1997(2) CPC 535 N.C.
Car purchased was having manufacturing defect where from oil and water were leaking - Full price paid - Dealer
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 with Rs. 2,500 as costs - 1999(2) CPC 662 Chd.
Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase - Manufacturer and not dealer directed to pay compensation -
1999(2) CPC 548 Chd.
Dealer cannot escape his liability merely saying that equipment was suffering from manufacturing defect even
before sale - 2001(1) CPC 499 Ker.
29

Dealer failed to supply booked car after receiving full amount - Dealer and manufacturer directed to refund car
price with 18% p.a. interest - 2000(1) CPC 483 Pb.
Delivery of car not made in time - Dealer directed to refund the amount with 12% interest - 2002(2) CPC 222
Chd.
--Replaced twice-third one also defective Dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect in the VCP
particularly when it was not given to the dealer for repairs - 2009(2) CPC 64 N.C.
Tractor could not work due to defect in its battery - Dealer alone, not manufacturer, is liable to compensate -
1999(2) CPC 165 Pb.
--Warranty Damages due to defective electrical material Complainant approached the Insurance Company and
obtained the relief, though not to his entire satisfaction, could not lay a claim on the petitioner/dealer Not entitled to
relief - 2010(3) CPC 648 N.C.
Dealers Negligence - Dealer not delivered promised free gift of Camera on purchase of T. V. Set - Directed
to deliver the Camera or its price to complainant - 1998(2) CPC 64 Chd.
Dealership - Application for dealership of petroleum product declined by opposite party - Claim for refund of
application cost does not come under ambit of Consumer Protection Act - 2001(1) CPC 512 T.N.
Mere assurance of dealership to a person cannot be said an arrangement of hiring of service - Relief cannot be
claimed for refusal of dealership - 1993 CPC 829 N.C.
Death by blast Complainants wife and daughter died in gas cylinder blast Dealer and manufacturer of gas
cylinder directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs for death of complainants wife and Rs. 1 lacs for death of his daughter 2009(3) CPC
121 Pb.
Death by gas leakage OP unable to prove that complainants were not their consumer of Gas Cylinder
causing loss of life of claimants family member Supply by other distributor not proved Relief of Rs. 5 lacs for
deficient service justified - 2010(2) CPC 631 N.C.
--As soon as seal of new cylinder was removed whole kitchen was engulfed by fire causing death of family member
of complainant Amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs as compensation justified - 2010(2) CPC 638 N.C.
Death in Elevator Complainants husband working as a Director at the age of 46 years when he was crushed
due to defect in the lift which was due to negligence of OP OP No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.
30148195/- with 9% interest - 2014(1) CPC 416 N.C.
Death of chicks - Death of chicks allegedly caused by use of defective animal feed supplied by the
petitioner/OP Defect in feed proved by cogent evidence Compensation awarded @ Rs. 74,277 - 2013(1)
CPC 39 N.C.
Decoration Goods - Goods purchased for decoration of office emitting foul gas causing eye burning -
Manufacturer directed to pay Rs. 30000 as compensation - 2000(1) CPC 296 Maha.
Defect - A defect in title in case of a stolen car is not covered by the term defect- 1993 CPC 372 N.C.
Defect in goods is different from deficiency in service - 1994(2) CPC 578 N.C.
--It is misconceived contention that sold goods cannot be declared defective after expiry of warranty period -
2009(1) CPC 389 Delhi
--Defect in Cell Analyser detected on the basis of report of technician Defect cannot be proved unless opinion of
expert is obtained u/s 13 of the CP Act Relief declined - 2010(2) CPC 126 N.C.
--Machine of Electro Copier purchased for Rs. 90,000/- failed to function properly OP directed to pay price of
machine with 9% p.a. interest and costs 2010(1) CPC 664 N.C.
Minor defect in motor cycle removed - Evidence of expert to prove defect not necessary - 2003(1) CPC 490 Chd.
Defect in battery - Defects in batteries, bulbs and tyres etc. not covered under warranty cannot be said to be
manufacturing defect - 2007(1) CPC 137 N.C.
Defect in bus - Complainant could not attend the marriage function as bus owned by OP got punctured
again and again OP directed to pay compensation and cost of Rs. 18,000 for deficiency in service - 2013(3)
CPC 485 H.P.
Defect in oil pump - A concurrent finding of fact on question of defect in Hydraulic Oil pump given by Fora
below Interference in revision is unwarranted 2010(1) CPC 201 N.C.
Defect in plastic sheets - Plastic sheets purchased from OP had cracked and were not eaten by rats as alleged
Unfair trade practice on the part of OPs well proved Relief granted by the Fora below upheld - 2014(2) CPC 149 N.C.
30

Defect in projector - Projector supplied to CMC failed to function during warranty period - Plea of
commercial purpose not acceptable - OP is liable for deficiency in service - 2008(2) CPC 660 N.C.
Defect in the lift Complainants husband working as a Director at the age of 46 years when he was crushed
due to defect in the lift which was due to negligence of OP OP No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.
30148195/- with 9% interest - 2014(1) CPC 416 N.C.
Defect of old machine Complainant purchased old machine at his own responsibility without any guarantee
of its functioning by OP Complainant is not entitled to any relief for any defect in machine - 2014(1) CPC 95 N.C.
Defective animal feed Death of chicks allegedly caused by use of defective animal feed supplied by
the petitioner/OP Defect in feed proved by cogent evidence Compensation awarded @ Rs. 74,277 - 2013(1)
CPC 39 N.C.
Defective bathtubs Manufacturer and contractor had mutually agreed for settlement of Rs. 93,500/- as full
and final settlement Nothing remains payable by manufacturer Order directing manufacturer to pay awarded amount
not sustainable 2009(3) CPC 267 N.C.
Defective Bicycle - Complainant suffered inconvenience for six months due to defect in bicycle purchased
from opposite party - Awarded Rs. 1,200 as compensation - 1992 CPC 767 Orissa
Defective Canopies - Opposite party provided defective awning terrace and canopies likely to give in due to
high wind blows - Complainant entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000 - 2000(2) CPC 601 Pb.
Defective Car - Complainant suffered mental agony due to defective car delivered to him - Held, entitled to
compensation of Rs. 10,000 with guarantee of repairing of car - 1991 CPC 233 H.P.
Replacement of car or refund of price claimed after seven months of purchase due to defect of air conditioner etc.
- Demand not justified - 2002(2) CPC 448 N.C.
Respondent sold defective car to complainant held liable to refund the price with compensation of Rs. 10,000
1995(1) CPC 636 Bom.
Three cars out of seven cars found to be defective - Replacement of car and payment of interest at the rate of 18%
per annum ordered to be paid by dealer - 1996(2) CPC 36 Chd.
Defective Cement - Complainants floor damaged due to defective cement - Seller held liable to pay Rs. 17,384
as compensation to complainant - 1996(1) CPC 374 Chandigarh.
To determine the quality of cement its Sample should be sent for proper analysis - Mere letter of Bureau of
Standard not sufficient - 1995(2) CPC 677 Kerala
Sample of cement used in plaster was sent for laboratory test - Sample of original cement should have been sent
for proper analysis - 2006(2) CPC 409 Hr.
Defective compressor Petitioner could not prove from evidence that he was ready to replace the compressor
and that District Forum wrongly allowed complaint Petition dismissed as being without merit - 2014(2) CPC 481 N.C.
Defective Denture - Complainant, entitled to be compensated when supplied with a defective denture by the
opposite party - 1992 CPC 242 N.C.
Defective food article - Worms were found in packets of powder manufactured by OP who produced no
certificate of competent authority Compensation of Rs. 15,000 and cost Rs. 20,000 for legal aid account upheld -
2010(3) CPC 268 N.C.
Defective goods - Defects of refrigerator could not be rectified by repeated replacement of parts - Deficiency in
service proved - Directed to refund the price with compensation and costs - 2006(1) CPC 89 Guj.
--After sales service provider is not liable under C. P. Act Manufacturer and dealer, jointly and severely
responsible for replacement/refund of the cost - 2010(2) CPC 177 N.C.
Laparoscopy set purchased from OP proved to be defective - OP directed to pay Rs. 1,88,843 with 10% interest
plus Rs. 50,000 as compensation - 2007(2) CPC 221 N.C.
--Loading machine purchased for Rs. 4,95,000 found to be defective Order of State Commission directing refund
of full price with Rs. 50,000 as compensation is justified - 2009(1) CPC 195 N.C.
OP supplied defective equipment of VSAT and Web Camera etc. - OP directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 with
activation fee with interest for supplying incomplete system - 2008(2) CPC 535 N.C.
Defective Frocks - Complainant purchased frocks which were found to be defective - Respondent directed to
refund the price - 1995(1) CPC 645 M.P.
31

Defect Fridge Fridge purchased from OP was having manufacturing defect Sufficient relief granted by
District Forum by ordering refund of its price Revision filed to blackmail the respondent dismissed with penal cost -
2013(2) CPC 95 N.C.
Defective Hard-disc - Defects appeared in Hard-disc during warranty period - Opposite Parties directed to
replace Hard-disc with compensation and costs - 2005(1) CPC 620 Chhattisgarh
Defective Jeep - Jeep in question started giving trouble from date of purchase - Compensation of Rs. 50,000
with 18% interest payable by OP is not on higher side - 2003(1) CPC 14 N.C.
Defective labeling OP manufacturer could use packaging material for Gutka in August, 2008 instead of
September, 2008 as per Rule 6 (1) of Rule, 1977 OP not liable for deficiency in service - 2012(1) CPC 554 N.C.
Defective Lift - Lift installed by OP snapped resulting in fracture of both legs of complainant - Respondent
directed to pay Rs. 2.50 lacs with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 5,000 - 2003(2) CPC 502 N.C.
Defective Machine - Alleged defect in machine for manufacturing concrete blocks not proved as all
accessories were not purchased from opposite party - Defect in machine not proved - 2001(1) CPC 371 U.P.
Complainant received back the price of defective machinery from the respondent - Not entitled to any relief -
1994(1) CPC 704 Guj.
--OP supplied lab machine with defective equipment Post installation services not provided adequately
OP directed to refund price of machine i.e. Rs. 17,50,000/- to the complainant - 2013(1) CPC 167 N.C.
Complainant suffered breathlessness by using Bipap machine - Dealer directed to replace the machine or refund
its price with interest - 2000(1) CPC 56 W.Bengal
Lathe machine purchased found to be defective - Purchaser awarded Rs. 44,119, cost of machine with interest -
1997(2) CPC 76 N.C.
Price of machine with compensation ordered to be refunded - Further compensation including interest is not
proper - 2001(1) CPC 337 N.C.
OP directed to pay Rs. 55,000 for supplying defective plant and machinery - Order upheld - However interest
reduced 18% to 15% - 2003(2) CPC 82 N.C.
--Machine purchased from O.P. proved to be defective but allegation of cheating and fraud not proved as
complainant was responsible for contributory negligence However compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 allowed for causing
mental agony to complainant by O.P - 2014(3) CPC 229 N.C.
Defective machinery OP failed to send his mechanic for installation of plant and machinery purchased by
complainant Deficiency in service well proved - 2010(3) CPC 649 N.C.
--Various machines supplied by OP proved to be defective OP failed to carry repairs during warranty period OP
directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 42.70 lacs for negligence in rendering service - 2012(1) CPC 317 N.C.
Defective Mattresses - Mattresses purchased proved to be defective even after change of pieces - Dealer
directed to refund Rs. 3,200 out of total price of Rs. 3,625 - 1999(1) CPC 618 Chd.
Defective Medicine - Ear drops medicine proved defective damaging complainants ears - Manufacturer and
not the dealer is liable to deficient service - Jamna Devi v. F.D.C. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 341 Raj.
Defective meter Complainant was forced to pay illegal water bills as the meter was defective
Refund of amount of bill with cost justified - 2013(3) CPC 257 N.C.
--Meter showing wrong units due to high speed was replaced but OP failed to rectify the wrong bill based on old
wrong meter reading OP directed to rectify the bill on the basis of actual consumption - 2014(1) CPC 295 N.C.
Defective paint - Paint of expensive car faded during warranty period - OP directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000
as compensation with cost Rs. 5,000 - 2008(3) CPC 141 N.C.
Defective Pan - Complainant got injury as the pan was defective - Rs. 150 awarded as compensation - N.
Ranganayakulu v. Manager, Manzog Appliances, 1992 CPC 758 A.P.
Defective refrigerator Petitioners allegation that an old and defective refrigerator was sold by respondent
to him was found baseless by Fora below by concurrent finding No fault can be found with impugned order Petition
dismissed - 2014(3) CPC 285 N.C.
Defective repairs - Complainant paid Rs. 30 lacs to OP for repairs of heavy power point which was not done
satisfactorily Repairs got done subsequently at the cost of Rs. 7.5 lacs only OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50
lacs 2011(2) CPC 200 N.C.
32

--Only minor defects, as malfunctioning of cars fan cannot be made the basis of a claim on ground of
malfunctioning defect in vehicle Such defects can be removed by repairs - 2013(1) CPC 536 N.C.
--OP failed to use 2 out of 12 bearings of standard manufacturing of cumin Functioning of Diesel Engines was
unsuccessful even after spending Rs. 3,39,357 - OP was rightly directed to pay Rs. 4,90,000 with cost of Rs. 3,000 for
deficiency in service 2012(3) CPC 372 N.C.
Defective Rubber Tubes - Testing report of the Institute that product is not approved and is defective -
Complaint allowed with compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 - 2004(2) CPC 594 H.P.
Defective shampoo Defective shampoo purchased from OP caused extensive damage to hair of poor girl
OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for unfair trade practice - 2014(3) CPC 121 N.C.
Defective Shoes - Shoes purchased for Rs. 350 found to be defective - Compensation of Rs. 100 instead of
demand of Rs. 5000 is justified - 2003(2) CPC 393 Delhi
--OP changed defective shoes with a pair of chappal and agreed to pay difference of price of Rs. 50 but refused to
pay later on OP directed to pay Rs. 50 with Rs. 2,000 as compensation as matter is a consumer dispute 2011(2) CPC
485 N.C.
--OP changed defective shoes with a pair of chappal and agreed to pay difference of price of Rs. 50 but refused to
pay later on OP directed to pay Rs. 50 with Rs. 2,000 as compensation as matter is a consumer dispute 2011(2) CPC
485 N.C.
Shoes purchased found defective - Respondent directed to refund the price - 1993 CPC 66 (1) (Goa)
Defective Sweater - The sweater purchased for Rs. 420 allegedly went of shape after washing - Relief denied
due to lack of evidence - 1996(1) CPC 604 Hr.
Defective T.V. - Television found to be defective - Replacement thereof by District Forum justified - 1996(1)
CPC 593 Hr.
Defective title of vehicle Vehicle repossessed forcibly sold to the complainant with defective title resulting
in suffering at hands of police Refund of value of vehicle minus 10% depreciation value per year held to be justified -
2009(2) CPC 734 N.C.
Defective Tractor - No major defect was found with the tractor purchased during warranty period -
Complainant allowed Rs. 2,500 for minor defect - 1997(2) CPC 184 N.C.
Defective Truck - Engine of purchased truck ceased after 13 months within warranty period - Dealer directed
to refund 50% price of truck - 1998(1) CPC 506 Chd.
Manufacturing defect in the truck purchased proved from its working - Laboratory test of truck is not necessary -
1997(1) CPC 154 N.C.
Cylinder block of truck purchased found to be defective - Replacement of parts with interest and compensation
allowed - 1998(2) CPC 110 Bihar
Defective Vehicle - Complainant granted compensation of Rs. 10,000 with 10% interest for defect in vehicle
purchased by him - Order justified - Enhancement in compensation declined - 2003(2) CPC 593 N.C.
Auto rickshaw purchased from O.P. found to be defective - O.P. directed to refund the price or replacement of
vehicle - 2005(2) CPC 513 N.C.
Dismissal of complaint about defective vehicle for non production of vehicle at workshop held to be erroneous -
Matter remanded - 2004(2) CPC 670 N.C.
Replacement of the vehicle not necessary when defect can be removed by replacement of a part of the vehicle -
1993 CPC 364 N.C.
Tipper Truck, found to be defective covering more distance at the time of passing of order - 1/3 of compensation
reduced in appeal due to subsequent coverage - 1997(2) CPC 8 S.C.
--Two Garbage Removers purchased from respondent not working satisfactorily - Complainant awarded Rs. 25,000
as compensation - 1993 CPC 761 U.P.
Defective Water Meter - Demand of bill on the basis of minimum guarantee during the period when meter is
defective held to be justified - 2001(1) CPC 598 Delhi
Defective water purifier - Machine purchased was of sub-standard quality - It was attended 3-4 times within
3 months - Inference can be drawn that it was not providing satisfaction service - Compensation granted - 2005(2) CPC
394 Delhi
Defective Weight - Defective weight found in possession of Distribution Agency - Its use by Agency not
proved - Malpractice by Agency not proved - 1991 CPC 444 Orissa
33

Defective wheel chair - Sufficient compensation in a case of deficient service already granted by District
Forum Enhancement of compensation without valid reasons held to be unjustified - 2014(2) CPC 365 N.C.
Defective/old machine OP delivered old machines which proved to be defective Complainant made
payment of Rs. 1,50,000 by getting a loan OP directed to replace old machines with penal cost and compensation of Rs.
1 lakh - 2009(1) CPC 152 H.P.
Deficiency in Service - Issue of defective machinery should be distinguished from deficiency in service -
2002(2) CPC 160 Chd.
--Bill on letter pad is issued by some firms to save sale tax OP held guilty of deficiency in service for defect in sofa
set 2009(3) CPC 717 Hr.
--Compensation claimed against OP for damaging reflection dish during erection operation by crane and its boom
OP took all necessary precautions in good faith, without any willful and deliberate neglect on its part Deficiency in
service not proved - 2011(3) CPC 624 N.C.
--Complainant was unable to prove denial of booking of gas cylinder by OP No computerized telephone chart in
support of his claim was produced Relief declined - 2012(2) CPC 95 N.C.
--Complaint is maintainable when deficiency in supply of spare parts of machinery was not made promptly
Though complainants are not consumer due to engagement in commercial activities by using heavy machinery i.e.
earthmovers - 2012(2) CPC 377 N.C.
Delay in car delivery as consignment from manufacturer reached late - Dealer not liable for deficiency in service -
2008(2) CPC 129 Pb.
--Non delivery of car and non refund of deposited money amounts to a deficiency in service 2009(1) CPC 258 Hr.
O.P. dealer detaining complainant tractor for 22 days for a petty balance amount of Rs. 1,422 O.P. directed to pay
Rs. 8,000 as compensation - 2004(1) CPC 502 M.P.
O.P. supplied computer spare part proved to be defective - O.P. liable to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation - 2004(1)
CPC 197 Maha.
--OP did not supply second gas cylinder to the complainant despite letter from IOC, even first cylinder was stopped
Fora below directing supply of second gas cylinder with compensation of Rs. 10,000 with cost of Rs. 2,000 justified -
2012(1) CPC 215 N.C.
--OP failed to install water heating system despite receipt of Rs. 60,000- out of total Rs. 1,05,000 - OP
directed to install the system within one month after receiving the balance amount - 2013(3) CPC 617 H.P.
Delay in order Complaint filed within 8 months of purchase of vehicle Delay of passing 61/2 years in passing
of order cannot give any advantage to OP who is liable for deficiency in service - 2009(1) CPC 257 N.C.
Delay in vehicle delivery Interest on deposit Relationship between petitioner and respondent No. 2 was
of principal-to-principal basis Dealer has no right or authority to bind company by any contract Complainant shall be
liable to realize sum from authorized dealer @ 18% p.a. 2009(3) CPC 47 N.C.
Delaying tactics - Replacement of defective vehicle ordered by District Forum and upheld in appeal Revision
with delay does not warrant any interference Delaying tactics to be avoided 2010(1) CPC 510 N.C.
Dental Chair - Dental chair supplied by dealer found to be defective - Directed to pay Rs. 50,000 with interest
to complainant - 1997(1) CPC 329 Pb.
Depreciation in value of vehicle - Vehicle repossessed forcibly sold to the complainant with defective title
resulting in suffering at hands of police Refund of value of vehicle minus 10% depreciation value per year held to be
justified - 2009(2) CPC 734 N.C.
Desert Cooler - Complainant spent Rs. 474 on repair of defective cooler - Held entitled to receive the same with
cost which is reduced from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 200 only - Rakesh Chaudhary v. Lalit Negi, 2002(2) CPC 262 Chd.
Desert cooler not working properly despite repair - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 1000 as costs and compensation -
Daljit Singh Walia v. Sh. Gurjit Singh Gill, 2001(2) CPC 28 Chd.
Detective Machine - A Magnetice Detective machine purchased for commercial purpose found to be defective
- Matter not covered under C.P. Act - 2002(2) CPC 432 N.C.
Detergent cake machine OP delayed installation of detergent machine after purchase for one year without
any reason OP directed to refund price of machine with interest @ 9% and cost 2011(1) CPC 56 U.P.
Detergent Powder - Dealer and manufacturer of detergent powder held liable for lesser weight of the detergent
powder - Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd. v. Shri Raj Dev Bhardwaj, 1998(1) CPC 202 H.P.
34

Determent Compensation - Weight of Dalda Ghee pouch was found to be 570 grams against printed weight
of 1 Kg. - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as a deterent compensation - 1999(2) CPC 11 Pb.
Diagnosing equipment defect Defect found in diagnosing equipment purchased by doctor from OP
within warranty period as it was not a big enterprise with huge profits Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of
Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act Complaint maintainable - 2009(2) CPC 523 N.C.
Diagnostic Kit - Diagnostic kit purchased for clinic laboratory found to be defective - Purchase for commercial
purpose - Complainant not a consumer - 1997(1) CPC 243 N.C.
Dis-Antenna - Business of dis Antenna started to earn livelihood for self employment - Relief cannot be denied
to complainant raising the plea of commercial purpose - 1996(1) CPC 559 Chandigarh.
Clear vision not coming in the T. V. Set - Cable operator ordered to pay Rs. 500 as compensation to the
complainant - 1994(2) CPC 210 Maha.
Dis-antenna not functioning properly - Dealer held liable to remove defect within 3 months to repay the amount
with interest - 1994(2) CPC 265 Kerala
Malfunctioning of equipment during warranting period - O.P. liable for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 357
N.C.
Discrepancies in bills - State Commission granted partial relief to petitioner on the basis of allegation of
alleged defective engine of harvestor combine Bills with discrepancies were made the basis of relief which could be
quashed but for failure of respondent of filing an appeal Impugned Order upheld 2011(2) CPC 581 N.C.
Drilling machine defect Machine purchased for Rs. 23 lacs from OP found to be defective Relief granted
by the State Commission cannot be set aside on vague and baseless grounds - 2011(3) CPC 411 N.C.
E.P.A.B.X. Communication - The communication system being used for business of Hotel - Complaint for
removal of defect of system does not lie under C.P. Act. - 1992 CPC 764 Delhi
E.P.A.B.X. Installation - Installation of EPABX was found to be defective - Respondent held liable for
rendering deficient service - 1997(1) CPC 271 Hr.
E.P.A.B.X. System - EPABX system purchased for hotel became defective during warranty period - Purchaser
is entitled to Rs. 50,000 as compensation - 2001(2) CPC 474 N.C.
EPBX system installed in Government Hospital burnt during warranty period - Opposite party directed to pay Rs.
2,10,380 with 9% interest - 2002(1) CPC 639 N.C.
Defect was found in the system for which Forum directed O.P. to replace the system - Huge amount was due as
arrears - Complaint dismissed - 2004(2) CPC 644 N.C.
--Defective Various complaints made during first year after purchase OP did not appear despite several
opportunities Order passed exparte Deficiency in service proved Compensation granted - 2009(2) CPC 60 N.C.
E.T. Plant - Complainant failed to prove defect in Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) purchased for Fiber Factory -
Proper jobs not done by complainant - OP directed to make ETP workable after completion of jobs - 2001(2) CPC 590
Chd.
Ear Drops - Ear drops medicine proved defective damaging complainants ears - Manufacturer and not the dealer
is liable to deficient service - Jamna Devi v. F.D.C. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 341 Raj.
Effect of Amending Act Undue delay in commissioning of Gas plant by OP Defect not rectified despite
repeated requests Plea of commercial purpose overruled as cause of action had occurred before Amending Act - 2010(2)
CPC 407 N.C.
Electric current in car - Electricity current passing through car alleged by complainant
Replacement of vehicle after 11 years by Consumer Fora is unjustified - 2009(3) CPC 249 N.C.
Electricity Motor - Complainant running 5 H.P. motor on 3 H.P. connection - Defect in motor due to his own
fault - Seller not liable - Ali Hussan v. Sahab Singh, 1995(2) CPC 121 Hr.
Defect - Electric motor of 125 H.P. running on 75 H.P. connection - Defect due to defective connection -
Compensation on account of manufacturing defect declined - 1993 CPC 334 Hr.
Defect in electric motor cannot be proved unless it is tested in a laboratory - 1994(2) CPC 310 Hr.
Electronic Motor - Complainant had to spend Rs. 52288 on repairs of electronic motor - Said amount is
recoverable from dealer alongwith 12% p.a. interest - 2002(2) CPC 160 Chd.
35

Elevator OPs installed only 13 out of 22 elevators despite payment of entire price of installation of
elevator OPs were directed to install all elevators within 90 days otherwise they could pay Rs. 10,000 per day
to the complainant - 2013(3) CPC 57 N.C.
Employees Misbehaviour - Car dealers should check their employees so that they may not misbehave with
the customers - 1991 CPC 230 Delhi
Engine defect - Half engine replaced - No engine to show consumption of mobile as result of any
manufacturing defect - Option to get engine replaced - 2008(3) CPC 27 N.C.
Engineers report - Order of Fora below directing replacement of tractor tyres was against report of engineer
Order set aside - 2010(3) CPC 247 N.C.
Enhanced compensation - Car purchased from OP suffered from manufacturing defects due to which
complainant had to visit the workshop for 17-18 times Compensation awarded by the State Commission is enhanced to
Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 25,000 - 2013(2) CPC 650 N.C.
--District Forum directed OP to refund Rs. 2500 charged as excess amount at the time of car booking State
Commissions order enhancing the amount of Rs. 5504 without valid reasons set aside - 2014(3) CPC 265 N.C.
Enhanced price - Complainant applied for allotment of DX but was kept in waiting list After DX became
available complainant is entitled to allotment on original terms of allotment and not an enhanced rate - 2010(3) CPC 564
N.C.
Enhancement of claim - Loss caused by bursting of cylinder State Commission enhanced the claim from
Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 2 lacs No evidence produced to enhance the claim amount further Impugned order upheld -
2014(2) CPC 499 N.C.
Enrichment Enrichment of purchase of car cannot be allowed in the name of so-called manufacturing defect
2009(3) CPC 529 N.C.
Entry Tax - Dealer is not liable to pay entry tax when it is a post contractual liability - 1996(1) CPC 160 N.C.
Equipments defect Diagnosing equipment purchased for Rs. 2,45,000/- within warranty period found to be
defective OP directed to refund price of equipment with 10% interest - 2009(2) CPC 523 N.C.
Escalator defect - Little daughter of complainant was crushed due to gap at the base of escalator - Airport
authorities directed to pay 2,50,000 French Francs or equivalent in Indian currency - 2004(2) CPC 428 N.C.
Evidence Complainant is not required to lead evidence to establish a fact which had been admitted by the
respondent or is otherwise established from the material on record - 2010(3) CPC 296 N.C.
--As per statements of the expert and other witnesses, no manufacturing defect in car proved Order of
Fora below awarding compensation of Rs. 1 lac set aside - 2013(3) CPC 435 N.C.
--Averments regarding manufacturing defect of car not supported by the evidence on record OP tried its best to
remove minor defect of noise etc No relief can be allowed to complainant - 2012(2) CPC 383 N.C.
--Complainant cannot prove by using plural term that four computers were submitted for repair Award of
compensation for one computer set amounting to Rs. 30,000 instead of Rs. 1,20,000 justified - 2013(3) CPC
604 N.C.
--District Forum ordered replacement of tractor without any prior inspection of vehicle by any expert nor
manufacturing was impleaded as a party Impugned order not legally sustainable 2012(3) CPC 442 N.C.
Excessive Compensation - Huge claim of Rs. 2 crore for mental and Rs. 3 crore as penalty claimed for
supplying defective bottles of Coca Cola - Complaint returned for necessary amendment - 2007(1) CPC 667 N.C.
Excess amount - After a conclusion that tractor not having manufacturing defect, order of replacement or
refund of entire price cannot be ordered Impugned order quashed Only excess amount to be refunded 2012(3) CPC
431 N.C.
Excess price Manufacturer had revised price of Tea Packet through sticker from Rs. 36 to Rs. 38 - Charging of
Rs. 38 cannot be termed as unfair trade practice on the part of dealer/manufacturer - 2010(3) CPC 161 U.P.
Exchange of T.V. Set - Oscar T.V. found to be defective - Exchanged with B.P.L. set charging more price in
the name of sale tax - Dealer directed to refund Rs. 2,000 with costs - 1999(2) CPC 411 Pb.
Excise Duty - Consumer Fora is competent to decide an issue of refund of Excise Duty - Section 11B of Central
Excise Act is no bar - 2001(2) CPC 652 M.P.
Dealer charged excise duty on car illegally - Directed to refund with cost and interest - 2000(1) CPC 129 Chd.
36

Deposits made as security for payment of excise duty with car price, consumer jurisdiction for refund cannot be
ousted - 1998(1) CPC 323 M.P.
Petitioner charging excess excise duty from respondent - Directed to refund the same with 12% interest and cost -
2006(2) CPC 1 N.C.
Tractor was freed from factory by paying excise duty - Subsequent increase or decrease in duty not to affect sale
of vehicle - 1999(2) CPC 348 Kar.
Excise Rebate - Delay in application for rebate due to complainants fault - Dealer cannot be held liable for
deficiency in service - Jagdish Singh v. Chandigarh Administration, 2001(2) CPC 3 Chd.
Dealer retained amount of excise rebate sent by manufacturer - Directed to pay said amount to complainant with
6% interest - 2007(1) CPC 419 N.C.
--As per notification if ambulance was purchased only by a Regd. Hospital or nursing home, excise rebate could be
claimed but it was not so in the present case Claim for excise duty rightly refused Deficiency in service not proved
2009(1) CPC 112 N.C.
Excise rebate on vehicle duly allowed by Distt. Forum after verification of papers - Interference in the order on
mere technical ground after 15 years unjustified - Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Mr. Pushap Raj, 2006(1) CPC 377 H.P.
Excise Subsidy - Denial of excise duty on ambulance van due to delay in filing claim by negligence of
manufacturer/dealer - Complainant entitled to claim of subsidy - 2002(2) CPC 69 N.C.
Execution Main order could not be executed as Company had ceased to manufacture the vehicles and
replacement was not possible Order justified - 2014(3) CPC 605 N.C.
Ex parte order Contention that the employee of OP received notice who did not intimate employer -
Not acceptable in absence of affidavit of employee Ex parte order passed by District Forum justified - 2009(2)
CPC 60 N.C.
Expert evidence - Godowns roof fell down - No expert produced to prove defective material - Dismissal of
complaint justified - 2004(1) CPC 416 N.C.
--No expert evidence was produced to prove manufacturing defect in vehicle Simply taking the vehicle
for services were once or twice does not prove the case of manufacturing defect - 2013(1) CPC 267 N.C.
Manufacturing defect of tractor cannot be established without getting vehicle examined by expert - 2004(1) CPC
613 M.P.
Minor defect in motor cycle removed - Evidence of expert to prove defect not necessary - 2003(1) CPC 490 Chd.
Expert Opinion - In the absence of expert opinion, Manufacturing defect in scooter not established - 2003(2)
CPC 202 Chd.
--Defect in Cell Analyser detected on the basis of report of technician Defect cannot be proved unless opinion of
expert is obtained u/s 13 of the CP Act Relief declined - 2010(2) CPC 126 N.C.
--Expert had not produced expertise certificate to prove his capability to give opinion on manufacturing
defect Order of Fora below ordering replacement of vehicle set aside - 2013(3) CPC 76 N.C.
Opinion of an expert appointed by District Forum and not by parties should be relied on to determine
manufacturing defect of tyres - 1997(1) CPC 668 N.C.
Expert report - In the absence of expert opinion u/s 13 (1) (c) of the Act, it cannot be concluded that vehicle is
having any manufacturing defect - 2010(2) CPC 67 N.C.
Extended Warranty - Extended warranty on fabricated pretext (road side repair) cannot be permitted to be
revoked - 2003(2) CPC 194 Chd.
No manufacturing defect had cropped up in the tractor during extended warranty period - Replacement of tractor
especially at belated stage not justified - 2001(2) CPC 215 U.P.
Fabricated quotations OP refused to supply machinery despite receipt of payment as complainant had
presented fabricated and false quotations Relief granted by District Forum rightly set aside by State Commission
Impugned order upheld - 2014(2) CPC 272 N.C.
False allegation - Complainant leveled allegation against OP for defect in installation of tubewell only to
escape liability of payment of loan towards one of relatives of OP OP not liable for deficiency in service 2012(3) CPC
227 N.C.
Fax machine - Quality of fax machine not found according to specification given in the brochure - Dealer and
manufacturer directed to refund the full price with 12% p.a. interest - 2000(1) CPC 448 Ker.
37

Finding of fact A concurrent finding of fact on question of defect in Hydraulic Oil pump given by Fora below
Interference in revision is unwarranted 2010(1) CPC 201 N.C.
Fitness certificate - OP failed to carry necessary repairs of vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect Nor
any certificate of fitness was issued Order of State Commission directing OP to carry the repairs is justified - 2013(2)
CPC 539 N.C.
Food Articles - Cadbury chocolate was found infested with worms and fungus - Manufacturer directed to pay
compensation of Rs.15,000 and ordered to give necessary directions to its dealer in this respect - 2007(1) CPC 280 N.C.
Fraud - Mere involvement of element of fraud or lodging of FIR cannot oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum
headed by experienced person 2009(1) CPC 258 Hr.
--Sale of vehicle by complainant during pendency of consumer proceedings Matter was knowingly concealed
Relief granted by Fora below set aside - 2014(1) CPC 68 N.C.
Free gift - Dealer not delivered promised free gift of Camera on purchase of T. V. Set - Directed to deliver the
Camera or its price to complainant - 1998(2) CPC 64 Chd.
Fridge sale - Dealer sold duplicate fridge in name of Kalvinator brand which was found to be defective -
Directed to refund the price with 12% interest - 2001(1) CPC 306 U.P.
Fridge - Defect - Complainants unilateral statement without cogent evidence held insufficient to prove defect in
fridge purchased - 2001(1) CPC 215 Ker.
Defective fridge did not function properly even after replacement - O.P. held liable to deficient service - 2005(2)
CPC 28 Raj.
Necessary repairs already carved out - Replacement of fridge not possible - 1995(2) CPC 254 Hr.
Frivolous litigation - Complainant provided free service and replacement of parts of AC on demand But he
continued filing of appeal/revision repeatedly Revision dismissed with penal cost of Rs. 25,000 - 2012(2) CPC 631 S.C.
Furniture - Various items of furniture entrusted to transporter not reached the destination - Transporter held
liable to compensate - 1996(2) CPC 594 N.C.
Furniture defect - Verbal guarantee given for furniture perfection - Furniture eaten into within 10 days of
purchase by termiate - Refund of price with 9% interest and Rs. 1500 ordered - 2003(1) CPC 482 Chd.
Furniture supplier - A supplier of furniture, not a consumer - The statute is for the consumer and not for
traders or manufacturers - 1995(1) CPC 358 Hr.
Gas Agency - Complaint against dealer for supplying defective Gas Regulator - Impleadment of Oil Corporation
is not necessary - 1999(2) CPC 413 Pb.
Gas connection - Gas connection transferred to Aligarh from Rampur - District Forum Aligarh has territorial
jurisdiction to decide the case - 2000(2) CPC 364 U.P.
A distributor cannot cancel the gas connection of a consumer alleging that consumers signature do not tally with
those on the voucher - 1994(1) CPC 353 Hr.
Complaint regarding disconnection of gas supply involving question of fraud and theft - Relief under Consumer
Protection Act declined - 1997(2) CPC 541 N.C.
Complaint remitted to District Forum was finally decided - Second application on the same subject does not lie -
1994(2) CPC 75 N.C.
--Connection cannot be delayed on the ground that consumer had refused to purchase an ISI gas stove - 1997(1)
CPC 272 Hr.
Dealer insisted for purchase of Hot plate from him prior to giving the gas connection - Directed to pay Rs. 7,000
to complainant as compensation - 1997(2) CPC 423 Chd.
Delay in gas connection forced complainant to approach Consumer Forum - Opposite party directed to pay Rs.
500 to complainant - 1998(2) CPC 466 Chd.
Delay of 20 days in transferring gas connection as complainant had given wrong address - Dealer not liable for
deficiency in service - 1999(1) CPC 639 Chd.
Directions - Redressal agencies are competent to direct the Gas Agencies to release the Gas connection in favour
of the consumer - M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Bakshish Rai Sharma, 1993 CPC 281 Hr.
Gas Cylinder not supplied as promised - Complainant had to apply for another connection - Deficiency in service
proved - Compensation awarded - 2005(2) CPC 393 T.N.
Indian Oil Corporation not liable for deficiency in service when an unauthorised Gas connection is given by a
dealer to a customer - 1994(1) CPC 477 S.C.
38

OP dealer delayed delivery of gas connection compelling complainant to purchase gas stove - Release of
connection with compensation of Rs. 2500 directed by District Forum - 2003(1) CPC 667 Chd.
Opposite party not disconnecting LPG connection despite repeated request - Even misbehaving with complainant
- Directed to pay enhanced compensation of Rs. 6000 - 2001(2) CPC 42 Pb.
Order of District Forum regarding release of L.P.G. connection being consensual one not to be disturbed in appeal
- Nathu Ram v. M/s. Mittal Gas Service, 1993 CPC 493 Hr.
Person registered for release of L.P.G. connection are consumer under the Consumer Protection Act - 1993 CPC
599 Pb.
Person registered for release of L.P.G. Connection with dealers are consumers under the Act - 1993 CPC 27 Hr.
Refusal to release the gas connection by the Company when identity between the claimants is not established, is
justified - 1994(2) CPC 204 U.P.
Removal of deficiency in rendering service in allotment of gas connection can be ordered under Section 14 (1) (e)
of the Act - 1994(2) CPC 297 Hr.
Undue delay in giving gas connection - Corporation directed to release connection with immediate effect -
1998(2) CPC 50 Hr.
Gas cylinder - A gas dealer is not liable to pay interest on security amount deposited by a consumer - 1997(1)
CPC 58 Pb.
A Gas Agency cannot escape the liability by a specious plea that main supplier alone is liable to compensate the
consumer - 1994(1) CPC 182 Hr.
A person registered as a consumer of gas is a consumer under the Act, even without making any cash payment in
advance - 1993 CPC 91 N.C.
--As soon as seal of new cylinder was removed whole kitchen was engulfed by fire causing death of family member
of complainant Amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs as compensation justified - 2010(2) CPC 638 N.C.
--As soon as seal of new cylinder was removed whole kitchen was engulfed by fire causing death of family member
of complainant Amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs as compensation justified - 2010(2) CPC 638 N.C.
--Burn injuries proved to have been occurred to consumer by defective gas cylinder - Awarding of compensation
justified - 1993 CPC 831 N.C.
Complainant a subscriber of gas cylinder noticed leakage in gas cylinder which could do any harm - OP directed
to pay Rs. 25000 for not carrying regular test of gas cylinder - K.N. Yashoda (Smt.) v. M/s Karthik Agencies, 2007(2) CPC
340 Kar.
Complainant failed to prove by evidence of technical expert that loss was caused by gas cylinder leakage - Relief
declined - 2001(1) CPC 257 Pb.
Complainant failed to prove that fire causing damage was the result of defective cylinder - Relief denied to
complainant - 1995(1) CPC 81 Guj.
Complainant filed to prove that fire was the result of defective gas cylinder - Not entitled to compensation 1995(1)
CPC 343 N.C.
Cylinder being defective resulting in a fire causing huge loss - Distributor being unauthorized agent, manufacturer
cannot be held liable for such loss - 2006(1) CPC 609 Maha.
Death due to defect in Gas Cylinder - Complainant rightly given a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 - 1993 CPC 159
N.C.
Death of a person due to explosion of gas cylinder - Petroleum Corporation distributor and mechanic held liable
for deficiency in service - 2006(2) CPC 426 N.C.
--Delay of two days in supply of gas cylinder Delay of one or two days could not be termed as unusual
Complaint dismissed with costs 2009(1) CPC 334 N.C.
District Forum directed respondent to supply gas cylinders as required - As deficiency in service is proved
complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1000 - 2000(1) CPC 539 Chd.
Gas Cylinder found to be defective - Distributor is liable to compensate the consumer - 1994(1) CPC 182 Hr.
Gas cylinder purchased from OP exploded causing huge loss to building of complainant - Dealer and HPCL held
severally and jointly liable for deficiency in service - 2008(1) CPC 689 N.C.
Insured gas cylinders were stolen - Higher price claimed - Complainant entitled to actual loss from insurer -
1999(2) CPC 628 Maha.
Loss due to leakage in cylinder - Both dealer and manufacture held to be liable - 1994(2) CPC 256 Guj.
--No general directions for compensation can be issued regarding leakage of gas cylinders - Each case to be directed
on its own merit - 1996(2) CPC 352 Chd.
39

--OP unable to prove that complainants were not their consumer of Gas Cylinder causing loss of life of claimants
family member Supply by other distributor not proved Relief of Rs. 5 lacs for deficient service justified - 2010(2) CPC
631 N.C.
--OP unable to prove that complainants were not their consumer of Gas Cylinder causing loss of life of claimants
family member Supply by other distributor not proved Relief of Rs. 5 lacs for deficient service justified - 2010(2) CPC
631 N.C.
State Commission awarded compensation for victim of burnt injuries due to gas cylinder leakage - No cogent
evidence produced - Case remitted for de novo disposal - 1996(2) CPC 168 N.C.
Gas cylinder booking Complainant was unable to prove denial of booking of gas cylinder by OP No
computerized telephone chart in support of his claim was produced Relief declined - 2012(2) CPC 95 N.C.
Gas cylinder explosion - Accident due to use of poor quality of rubber tube of LPG causing loss to
complainant - Distributor held liable for deficiency in service - 2006(2) CPC 316 N.C.
--Complainants wife and daughter died in gas cylinder blast Dealer and manufacturer of gas cylinder directed to
pay Rs. 4 lacs for death of complainants wife and Rs. 1 lacs for death of his daughter 2009(3) CPC 121 Pb.
Gas cylinder leakage - Leakage of gas cylinder was sought to be lit by lighter - Cylinder caught fire resulting
in death of complainants husband - Dealer and manufacturer both are liable - 2007(1) CPC 206 N.C.
--Complainant suffered physical injuries and household items damaged in fire caused by the leakage of gas cylinder
OP being negligent directed to pay compensation of Rs. 348167 to the complainant - 2012(1) CPC 334 N.C.
--Death caused due to leakage of gas cylinder when light was switched on as advised by LPG attendant Dealer
alone and not the manufacturer is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lacs including cost of house with 9% interest
2010(1) CPC 576 N.C.
--OPs directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,66,550 for loss caused due to gas leakage due to negligence of OP
employees Contract between parties cannot be denied Impugned order upheld - 2014(3) CPC 30 N.C.
--State Commission determined compensation of deceased with multiplier of 15 with income at Rs. 15,000 p.a. -
Death caused by leakage in gas cylinder Order is just and proper - 2012(2) CPC 215 N.C.
Gas cylinder supply OP did not supply second gas cylinder to the complainant despite letter from IOC, even
first cylinder was stopped Fora below directing supply of second gas cylinder with compensation of Rs. 10,000 with
cost of Rs. 2,000 justified - 2012(1) CPC 215 N.C.
Gas cylinders theft Fora below allowed claim of Rs. 201600 for theft of gas cylinder Order not
controverted by any cogent evidence Revision dismissed Order upheld - 2012(2) CPC 322 N.C.
Gas plant Undue delay in commissioning of Gas plant by OP Defect not rectified despite repeated requests
Plea of commercial purpose overruled as cause of action had occurred before Amending Act - 2010(2) CPC 407 N.C.
Gas Regulator - Gas Regulator found to be defective - Dealer directed to replace Gas Regulator with immediate
effect as it is an essential item - 1999(2) CPC 413 Pb.
Gas stove defect Complainant suffered deficiency in service on part of injuries due to manufacturing defect in
gas stove which was not replaced despite requests O.P. rightly held liable for payment of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation -
2014(2) CPC 122 Pb.
Generator set - Alleged defect in generator set required elaborate evidence - Relief can be got from civil court
only - 1998(1) CPC 484 T.N.
Breach of a contract about supply of Generator - Not covered under the C.P. Act - Remedy has in civil court -
1998(1) CPC 515 T.N.
Defect in Set developed during warranty period - Plea of commercial use is not available - 2004(1) CPC 687 N.C.
Defect of sets occurred within warranty period not removed - Op directed to remove defect with Rs. 3,000 as
compensation and costs - 2003(2) CPC 122 Pb.
Generator set defect Defect Generator engine develop during warranty period OP could not show that
allegation was mala fide State Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs Order upheld in revision - 2012(2)
CPC 551 N.C.
--Generator set purchased from OP stopped functioning within one month of purchase Fora below rightly directing
OP to refund the price with 9% interest and cost Order upheld - 2012(2) CPC 182 N.C.
--Diesel generating set broken down after purchase Set purchased for Rs. 45,25,000/- but insured for Rs.
35,00,000/- with element of under insurance Claim of Rs. 3,71,509.50 on pro rata basis justified - 2009(2) CPC 202 S.C.
40

Ghee pouch - Weight - Weight of Dalda Ghee pouch was found to be 570 grams against printed weight of 1 Kg.
- Dealer directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as a deterent compensation - 1999(2) CPC 11 Pb.
Ghee tin Shortage - Tin of Ghee was found to be 170 Gms less on weighment - Opposite party directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 5000 to complainant/customer - 1997(1) CPC 172 Pb.
Glazed tiles - Difference in colour of glazed tiles - Tiles changed of one out of three bathrooms only - O.P. liable
to pay Rs. 5,000 with 9% interest as compensation - 2004(1) CPC 58 Chd.
Glow Sign Board - The Glow Sign Board installed by opposite party cracked the next day falling on the
ground - Complainant held entitled to refund of price with 15% interest - 2000(2) CPC 30 Chd.
Gold ornaments Mere chit bearing no signature cannot be made basis of claim, alleging that ornaments were of
inferior quality - Ashwani Kumar Kukreja v. M/s. Puran Chand Jewellers, 1995(1) CPC 346 Hr.
Gold ring stone - Respondent studded inferior quality of red coral instead of valuable stone in gold ring -
Respondent liable to pay price of stone with compensation of Rs. 14,400 - Ashok Kumar Nabhewala (Advocate) v. Nippy
Jewellers (M/s.), 2007(2) CPC 74 Chd.
Goods As per latest definition of goods now it includes goods imported in India after Amendment Acts of
1985 and 1991 - 2009(2) CPC 702 N.C.
Goods defect OBM purchased from OP found suffering with fault within two months of installation OP
directed to refund cost of OBM with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 5,000/- - Plea of purchase for commercial purpose is
rejected - 2009(2) CPC 43 N.C.
--Amount for boring the tubewell and pump set received by OP/petitioner Contractor was only the agent and
representative of OP, not to be blamed for failure of tubewell OP held liable for deficient service 2009(3) CPC 370
N.C.
--Xerox machine developed defects within 30 days of purchase Once genuineness of machine as manufactured by
Canon was not disputed, it was bounden duty of the petitioner to rectify the defects 2010(1) CPC 517 N.C.
Gross negligence - Various machines supplied by OP proved to be defective OP failed to carry repairs during
warranty period OP directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 42.70 lacs for negligence in rendering service - 2012(1)
CPC 317 N.C.
Guarantee - When a guarantee is given against any defect in goods it is not a case of sale of goods as it includes
element of rendering a service - 1997(2) CPC 501 Pb.
Guarantee period - Complainant purchased old machine at his own responsibility without any guarantee of its
functioning by OP Complainant is not entitled to any relief for any defect in machine - 2014(1) CPC 95 N.C.
Hair dye - Date of manufacturing on the packet of hair dye mentioned as September, 1993 - Packet sold in
August, 1993 - Packet does not become inferior by this fact alone - 1998(2) CPC 302 Hr.
Hand pump - Hand pump not working due to non availability of water at certain place - Respondent not liable
for rendering deficient service - Ram Kishan v. Jagdish, 1995(2) CPC 64 Hr.
Harassment of OP - Fridge purchased from OP was having manufacturing defect Sufficient relief granted by
District Forum by ordering refund of its price Revision filed to blackmail the respondent dismissed with penal cost -
2013(2) CPC 95 N.C.
Harvestor combine State Commission granted partial relief to petitioner on the basis of allegation of alleged
defective engine of harvestor combine Bills with discrepancies were made the basis of relief which could be quashed but
for failure of respondent of filing an appeal Impugned Order upheld 2011(2) CPC 581 N.C.
Harvester combine defect - Harvester Combine purchased with one year warranty It was found with some
faulty components OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs with 9% p.a. interest 2011(1) CPC 430 N.C.
Hearing aid device - Device remained non functional and was sent to Company for replacement but not be
returned - O.P. directed to pay its price Rs. 5250 with 6% interest and costs - 2004(1) CPC 154 Chd.
Hearing Aid Machine - Hearing Aid Machine purchased did not function properly despite repeated repairs -
Dealer directed to replace the Machine or refund its price with 18% interest p.a. - 1999(1) CPC 94 Pb.
Hire purchase agreement Complainant purchased tractor from OP which suffered from
manufacturing defect Even registration documents were not supplied OP was directed to refund Rs. 85,000 -
Order upheld - 2013(3) CPC 134 N.C.
41

I.S.I. Mark - Bureau of Indian Standards refusing to license a party to use I.S.I. Mark - Case does not fall within
the consumer jurisdiction - 1994(2) CPC 189 N.C.
Generator set advertised as ISI mark - Sale of set without ISI mark amounts to deficient service - 2003(2) CPC
122 Pb.
Ice cream machine defect - Dealer/OP ready to remove the defect but complainant disagreed - Replacement
of machine declined - 2002(2) CPC 257 Chd.
Identity card - Dealer could not pay amount of discount as complainant delayed in giving identity card
Payment was made soon after identify card was deposited OP dealer committed no fault - 2010(3) CPC 97 Chd.
Illegal order - Opposite party agreed to remove defect of T. V. Set within one week - District Forum passed the
order without waiting for one week - Impugned order not legally valid - 1999(1) CPC 391 Chd.
Illegal water bills - Complainant was forced to pay illegal water bills as the meter was defective
Refund of amount of bill with cost justified - 2013(3) CPC 257 N.C.
Impleadment - Complaint against dealer for supplying defective Gas Regulator - Impleadment of Oil
Corporation is not necessary - 1999(2) CPC 413 Pb.
--District Forum ordered replacement of tractor without any prior inspection of vehicle by any expert nor
manufacturing was impleaded as a party Impugned order not legally sustainable 2012(3) CPC 442 N.C.
Machine purchased from dealer found to be defective - Impleadment of manufacturer is not necessary - 2001(1)
CPC 48 Chd.
Inconvenience - Merely that vehicle was taken to service station for repairs several times does not prove a
manufacturing defect except to claim a compensation for causing inconvenience to complainant 2010(1) CPC 175 N.C.
Increased price As per provisions of Sales of Goods Act a purchaser is bound to pay the price of goods if
increased before delivery of goods 2011(2) CPC 303 S.C.
Infrastructure - Compensation for defect in infrastructure arbitrarily reduced by State Commission -
Compensation based upon report of Local Commissioner at Rs. 3,500 instead of Rs. 1,000 justified - 2004(2) CPC 152
N.C.
Inherent powers - An order based upon patent defect can be reviewed by Consumer Fora in its inherent
powers like other quasi judicial Tribunals - 1999(2) CPC 352 Kar.
Inkjet printer - Dealer charged Rs. 592 in excess than actual price of printer - Refund of excess price with 10%
interest and cost justified - Harpreet Singh v. A.T.C.O., 2002(2) CPC 35 Chd.
Breakdown of inkjet printer and rewinding machine with frequent blockage of nozzle plate within 12 days of
operation - Manufacturing defect proved - OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 45000 with 6% interest - 2007(2) CPC
290 N.C.
Insect in biscuit - Laboratory test of box of biscuit is not necessary when insect baked with biscuit is visible to
naked eye - 2004(1) CPC 227 Orissa
Installation of machinery - OP failed to install machinery purchased by complainant - Directed to refund
price of machinery with 12% interest - 2003(2) CPC 347 N.C.
Interest - Tractor and trailer purchased found to be defective - Dealer directed to refund the price with 15%
interest - 2001(2) CPC 564 N.C.
Undue delay in delivery of tractor - Purchaser entitled to 18% interest on deposit - 1995(2) CPC 573 Pb.
Interest on deposits - Dealer failed to supply booked car after receiving full amount - Dealer and
manufacturer directed to refund car price with 18% p.a. interest - 2000(1) CPC 483 Pb.
--Delay of 32 days in delivery of truck - Dealer directed to pay 18% interest on deposited amount - 1999(2) CPC 213
H.P.
--Delivery delayed - Interest on deposit Relationship between petitioner and respondent No. 2 was of principal-to-
principal basis Dealer has no right or authority to bind company by any contract Complainant shall be liable to realize
sum from authorized dealer @ 18% p.a. 2009(3) CPC 47 N.C.
Levy cement not supplied by opposite party within stipulated period - Directed to pay 12% interest on deposits -
1999(1) CPC 603 N.C.
Interest on security - A Gas Dealer is not liable to pay interest on security amount deposited by a consumer -
1997(1) CPC 58 Pb.
42

Gas Agencies are not liable to pay interest on security deposits because the income of such deposits is utilised for
the benefits of consumers - 1996(2) CPC 352 Chd.
Inverter - Inverters defect could not be removed despite repeated attempts - Complainant entitled to replacement
of inverter with warrantee or refund of price with 18% interest - 2000(2) CPC 683 Kerala
Inverter battery - Battery for inverter alleged to be defective - Matter relating to service should be decided
under Consumer Protection Act - Case remanded - 2005(1) CPC 415 Delhi
Invertors defect - Invertor purchased from O.P. found to be defective - Complainant rightly allowed refund of
price with compensation alongwith 9% interest - 2005(2) CPC 464 Hr.
Jeep defect - District Forum ordered replacement of certain parts of jeep purchased after period of warranty -
Order not sustainable - 2000(1) CPC 444 Maha.
Jeep tyre - Complainant regarding defect in tyres of Jeep used by Commission Agent for commercial purpose not
maintainable under Consumer Protection Act - M.R.F. Ltd. v. M/s. Jiwan Dass and Company, 1998(1) CPC 270 Pb.
Jet printer - Order passed to repair or replace defective printer - Repair carried out - Respondent cannot be
prosecuted for non compliance of order - 2002(2) CPC 660 N.C.
Jewellery - Respondent failed to make ornaments according to contract terms - Held liable to refund the amount
with 18% interest - 1997(2) CPC 716 Delhi
Joint liability - Complainant suffered dropsy disease on consumption of mustered oil purchased from Ops -
Manufacturer and shopkeeper directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation with cost of Rs. 10,000 - 2006(2) CPC 254 Delhi
Contract executed by manufacturer through dealer - Both are liable severely and jointly for deficiency in service -
2006(1) CPC 30 N.C.
Where agent is liable for deficiency in service, complaint against agent and principal is maintainable - 2008(3)
CPC 325 N.C.
--Complainant and his family suffered injury as electrical swing seat got detached - Organizers and owner of swing
held jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service - 2008(2) CPC 342 N.C.
--No action was taken on complaint regarding defect in cylinder/regulator - Complainants daughter had died in fire
accident caused by cylinders defect - Dealer and manufacturer are liable to deficiency in service - Compensation of Rs.
70,000 with cost Rs. 4,000 justified - 2008(2) CPC 682 N.C.
Jurisdiction Complainant surrendered the vehicle due to non payment of EMI Matter finally decided by
Civil Court Consumer jurisdiction is barred on the principle of multiplicity of litigation - 2014(3) CPC 36 N.C.
Kit-ply - Complainant purchased kitply for his dispensary which proved to be defective - Held entitled to refund
of price, labour charges and compensation for suffering loss in practice - 1994(2) CPC 541 Maha.
Knitting Machine - An Embroidery Knitting Machine purchased by handicapped complainant remained idle
for 3 years due to defect - Respondent directed to pay Rs. 51,000 as compensation - 1995(2) CPC 303 Assam
L.M.L. Scooter - L.M.L. Scooter, purchased by complainant found to be defective - Complainant awarded Rs.
21,650 with interest - L.M.L. Ltd. v. Satya Prakash Sharma, 1998(1) CPC 379 Hr.
L.P.G. - Burner caused fire in gas cylinder causing injury and damage to household articles - Both dealer and
manufacturer directed to pay Rs. 44,000 - 2005(1) CPC 351 Uttranchal
L.P.G. cylinder bursting Loss caused by bursting of cylinder State Commission enhanced the claim
from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 2 lacs No evidence produced to enhance the claim amount further Impugned order upheld -
2014(2) CPC 499 N.C.
Laboratory - Laboratory test of defective cement should be undertaken within 3 weeks - Delay in test does not
prove the real quality of the goods - S.M. Aggarwal v. M/s. Thar Cement Ltd., 1997(2) CPC 205 Hr.
Laboratory analysis - Compliance of Section 13 (3) (c to g) is necessary only when defect cannot be
determined without proper analysis - 1992 CPC 445 Hr.
Laboratory test - An oil paint cannot be said to be defective unless put to a laboratory test - 1994(2) CPC 312
Hr.
Chocolate found infested with larva/worm - No laboratory test carried out - Manufacturer cannot be held liable
without test of chocolate u/s. 13 of the Act - 1998(2) CPC 596 H.P.
--Where defect can be checked with open eyes, laboratory test of water pipe is not necessary - 2012(1) CPC 285
N.C.
Defect in electric motor cannot be proved unless it is tested in a laboratory - 1994(2) CPC 310 Hr.
43

Defect should be got checked from an expert or item should be tested in laboratory - Inspection by official of
Distt. Forum deprecated - 1997(2) CPC 191 Pb.
Laboratory test carried without approval of District Forum - Rice bran cannot be held to be defective - 2002(1)
CPC 462 Pb.
Laboratory test is not necessary when impurity of water can be detected by naked eyes - 1993 CPC 439 Delhi
Manufacturing defect in the truck purchased proved from its working - Laboratory test of truck is not necessary -
1997(1) CPC 154 N.C.
--Oil found adulterated by laboratory test - Objection that author of report was not cross-examined is no defence -
2006(2) CPC 254 Delhi
Request for laboratory test of defective cement was made after 7 months of its use without keeping any sample -
permission for test declined - 1996(2) CPC 143 Hr.
Sample of cement sent for laboratory test - Mandatory procedure not followed - Test report cannot be relied -
2005(1) CPC 538 J & K H.C.
Soft drink bottle with dead fly was not sent by Forum from laboratory test for 9 months - OP cannot be held liable
for deficiency in service in absence of appropriate laboratories test - 2006(2) CPC 264 Hr.
There is no use of sending poultry feed sample for laboratory test after long lapse of time as toxin in feed
increases with passage of time - 1996(2) CPC 462 N.C.
When a foreign matter floating in a mineral water bottle is visible to naked eyes - Laboratory test of the same is
not necessary - 2005(1) CPC 523 Kar.
Where a question pertains only to weight of a packet, laboratory test of the item is not necessary - 1999(2) CPC 11
Pb.
Laboratory test of car - Goods not to be sent for laboratory test in all the cases - 1993 CPC 601 Delhi
Lack of pleading - Oil machinery found to be defective - Complainant allowed Rs. 8,500 as compensation
even without specific prayer - R. Bhaskara v. Rohini Mill Stores, 1994(2) CPC 505 A.P.
Lap top defect Complainant failed to prove by cogent evidence that he suffered loss of job on account
of breakdown of lap top Adequate repairs was done by OP Relief of Rs. 30,000 justified Huge claim
denied - 2013(3) CPC 451 N.C.
Laser Printer - Dealer replaced the defective printer within reasonable time - Complainant not entitled to
further relief - Alfa Electronics, Chandigarh (M/s.) v. M/s. Anita Gupta, 1998(2) CPC 15 Hr.
No privity of a contract of printers service between the parties - Manufacturer cannot be held liable for deficiency
in service - 2000(2) CPC 218 N.C.
Replacement of defective printer effected - No more compensation can be allowed - 1998(1) CPC 350 Hr.
Lathe machine - Lathe machine purchased found to be defective - Purchaser awarded Rs. 44,119, cost of
machine with interest - 1997(2) CPC 76 N.C.
Leakage in water pipe Water pipe purchased from OP dealer having leakage of water at several places
Replacement or refund of price with compensation justified - 2012(1) CPC 285 N.C.
Less weight of packet - Weight of packet of surf found to be 965 grams against 1 Kg. printed on packet - OP
directed to pay Rs. 15,00 as cost and compensation - 2003(1) CPC 298 Pb.
Weight of Dalda Ghee pouch was found to be 570 grams against printed weight of 1 Kg. - Dealer directed to pay
Rs. 10,000 as a deterent compensation - 1999(2) CPC 11 Pb.
Liability - A dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect of a vehicle - Responsibility lies on
manufactures only - 2004(2) CPC 551 Kerala
A manufacturer cannot be absolved of his warranty obligation for sales made through the agent - 1994(1) CPC
372 Hr.
Amount for car booking remitted to manufacturer - Manufacturer alone is liable for delay in delivery of car -
2008(3) CPC 384 N.C.
--Amplifier purchased from the dealer is not generating requisite cooling for plant and machinery - Dealer and not
manufacturer held liable for deficiency in service - 2008(3) CPC 31 N.C.
Both dealer and manufacturer held liable where chassis of van was found broken during warranty period - 1999(1)
CPC 621 H.P.
Car booked not delivered within stipulated period - Both dealer and manufacturer held jointly and severally liable
to refund deposits with 18% interest - Ind. Auto Ltd. v. D.S. Cheema, 2000(2) CPC 389 Chd.
44

Complainant enjoying entertainment of electrical swing sustained injury due to its detachment - Owner and driver
of swing including Organizer and Director of fair are liable to pay the compensation - 2008(1) CPC 652 N.C.
Dealer cannot escape his liability by pleading that price of vehicle had been sent to manufacturer, in case of non-
delivery of vehicle despite of payment - 2006(2) CPC 100 N.C.
Dealer/manufacturer cannot escape their liability merely that some parts of the vehicle were not their own
products - TATA Motors Limited v. Suraj Kohli, 2006(2) CPC 733 Hr.
Decoration goods for office found to be injurious - Dealer and architect not liable - Only manufacturer is liable for
loss - Aarti Drugs Ltd. v. Nuchem Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 296 Maha.
Defective car sold as new one - Defect not removed despite request - Dealer and manufacturer directed to remove
defect and pay compensation of Rs. 90,000 - 2004(1) CPC 438 S.C.
Ear drops medicine proved defective damaging complainants ears - Manufacturer and not the dealer is liable to
deficient service - Jamna Devi v. F.D.C. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 341 Raj.
--Fora below granted relief of Rs. 102973/- against manufacturer only for defect in vehicle Order modified to the
extent that liability should be shared equally by manufacturer and the dealer with further enhancement of additional relief
of Rs. 40,000 - 2013(2) CPC 466 N.C.
Full price of PCL paid by complainant to dealer was duly forwarded to manufacturer - Manufacturer alone is
liable for delay in delivery of PCL - 2002(2) CPC 356 Chd.
Gas cylinder purchased from OP exploded causing huge loss to building of complainant - Dealer and HPCL held
severally and jointly liable for deficiency in service - 2008(1) CPC 689 N.C.
It is manufacturer not the dealer who should be held liable for manufacturing defect of a motor vehicle - 2006(1)
CPC 415 N.C.
--It was the Dealer alone who was responsible for supplying a defective tractor No priority of contract between
complainant and manufacturer Manufacturer excepted from any liability in the case - 2014(2) CPC 177 N.C.
L.M.L. Vespa Scooter could not be repaired despite repeated repairs - The dealers and manufacturers to refund its
price Rs. 26,114 with 12% interest - Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. L.M.L. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 346 Orissa
Liability of refund by manufacturer extends only to the amount received by him from the dealer - 2002(1) CPC
155 Chd.
Local dealer receiving the payment for car cannot escape his liability saying that the amount was sent to
manufacturer who should incur liability to compensate - 1999(2) CPC 653 Chd.
Major parts of car had to be replaced twice within 5 days during warranty period - Defect could not be removed
Manufacturer/Dealer directed to replace car with compensation of Rs. 5000 - 2001(1) CPC 174 Chd.
Manufacturer is liable jointly and severely for the negligence committed by the dealer as an agent - 2003(2) CPC
400 Jhar.
Mini tractor having manufacturing defect - Both dealer and manufacturer directed to replace the tractor - 2002(1)
CPC 288 N.C.
Motor cycle purchased was found to be defective - Both manufacturer and dealer held liable jointly and severally
to pay the price of motorcycle to complainant - 2002(1) CPC 651 N.C.
No investigation into cause of death of chicks about disease or vaccination - Manufacturer of vaccine or supplier
of chicks held not liable - 2000(1) CPC 310 N.C.
Non-delivery of car after deposit of booking amount sent to the manufacturer - Dealer not liable for deficiency in
service - 2006(1) CPC 231 N.C.
Only manufacturer delaying delivery of car without no fault of the dealer - Manufacture alone is liable to
compensate the complainant/customer - 2001(2) CPC 135 Chd.
--OP sold vehicle showing wrong date of manufacturing Only dealer and not the manufacturer is liable to
compensate the complainant - 2012(1) CPC 524 N.C.
Refrigerator purchased found to be defective - Manufacturer and not dealer is liable for deficient service -
Replacement ordered - 2004(2) CPC 383 Guj.
Refund of booking amount of car ordered - Manufacturer alone and not the dealer is liable - 2008(1) CPC 138
Chd.
Seller pursuing the case Manufacturer not appearing - Whole liability lies upon the manufacturer - 1995(2) CPC
187 Pb.
--Tractor purchased from OP proved to be defective - Both manufacturer and dealer directed to refund its price with
compensation of Rs. 55,000/- with cost 2010(1) CPC 490 N.C.
--Tyres of vehicle excluded for insurance policy Accident caused due to defective tyres Manufacturer/dealer of
vehicle not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant 2010(1) CPC 7 N.C.
45

Vehicle not delivered despite payment of booking amount - Manufacturing company and not the dealer is liable
for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 367 U.P.
When defect is found in an item dealer alone is not liable but manufacturer is also liable for manufacturing defect
- 2005(2) CPC 557 Kar.
Where no privity of contract was between complainant and manufacturer - Liability for deficiency is confined
only to the dealer who is to compensate the loss - 2007(1) CPC 409 N.C.
Liability of dealer - OP supplied vehicle with defect with engine of lesser capacity - He cannot absolved of
liability by saying that vehicle was supplied by manufacturer unless he is acting as an agent - 2007(2) CPC 66
Chhattisgarh
--Delay in delivery of vehicle due to acts of dealer alone Manufacturer cannot be held liable but the dealer alone
2009(3) CPC 197 N.C.
--Complainant suffered mental agony due to manufacturing defect of car OP dealer directed to remove the defect
and pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation Manufacturer is not liable - 2014(3) CPC 412 N.C.
Liability of LPG distributor Death caused due to leakage of gas cylinder when light was switched on as
advised by LPG attendant Dealer alone and not the manufacturer is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lacs including
cost of house with 9% interest 2010(1) CPC 576 N.C.
Liability of manufacturer - Cylinder being defective resulting in a fire causing huge loss - Distributor being
unauthorized agent, manufacturer cannot be held liable for such loss - 2006(1) CPC 609 Maha.
--Loading machine, purchased with the help of Bank loan suffered with manufacturing defect Loan could
not be paid Bank repossessed machine Bank cannot be ordered to pay entire cost with margin money
Manufacturer was directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs in lump sum - 2013(3) CPC 107 N.C.
Lizard in bottle Edge of Pepsi bottle cap found tempered with Petting of lizard later on can be presumed by
Fora Relief declined - 2009(1) CPC 22 N.C.
Loading machine defect - Loading machine purchased for Rs. 4,95,000 found to be defective Order of
State Commission directing refund of full price with Rs. 50,000 as compensation is justified - 2009(1) CPC 195 N.C.
Loss of job - Complainant failed to prove by cogent evidence that he suffered loss of job on account of
breakdown of lap top Adequate repairs was done by OP Relief of Rs. 30,000 justified Huge claim denied -
2013(3) CPC 451 N.C.
Loss of subsidy - Defect in tractor purchased from OP No. 1 and 2 appeared just after purchase - Tractor given
for repairs was kept by OP for 6 years - OP directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000 for loss of subsidy in addition to Rs. 1,69,000
awarded by District Forum - 2008(2) CPC 396 M.P.
Luna - Defect - Complainant not taking proper care - Case of purchased vehicle - Seller not liable for defect in the
vehicle - 1995(2) CPC 27 N.C.
Machine defect - Machine purchased by complainant found to be defective causing great loss - Manufacturer
and dealer directed to repay the price with compensation - 2002(2) CPC 81 N.C.
--Stabilizers started trouble during warranty period Evidence not produced about carrying out repairs Not
attending genuine complaints amounts to serious deficiency in service Directed to replace or refund the price with
interest and cost 2011(1) CPC 147 N.C.
Machine purchased under Self Employment found to be defective - Respondent directed to replace machine with
compensation of Rs. 25,000 - 1998(2) CPC 29 W. Bengal
--Copier machine could not be made functional Institution of complaint by partner of firm cannot be questioned
Person defined in section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C. P. Act includes a firm whether registered or not Complaint allowed -
2010(2) CPC 85 N.C.
Machine for re-sale - Delay in delivery of machine purchased for resale - Complainant not a consumer -
Relief declined - 2003(1) CPC 12 N.C.
Maintablity - Defective printing press - Machinery installed for self employment - No commercial purpose -
Complaint maintainable - 2007(2) CPC 594 N.C.
Maintenance of car - Dealer had to keep sold vehicle in his garage for several years due to fault of purchaser -
Awarded Rs. 5,000 as maintenance charges - 1997(1) CPC 209 Chd.
46

Mango pickle package - No name of manufacturer including month and year of manufacturing was given on
package of mango pickles - Manufacturer/dealer liable for deficiency in service - 2002(1) CPC 491 Kar.
Manufacturer - Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase - Manufacturer and not dealer directed to pay
compensation - 1999(2) CPC 548 Chd.
A manufacturer is squarely within the ambit of a trader - Consumer can lodge a complaint when defective goods
are sold to him - 1994(1) CPC 372 Hr.
Liability of refund by manufacturer extends only to the amount received by him from the dealer - 2002(1) CPC
155 Chd.
Manufacturer never appointed respondents as its dealer for sale of computer - He cannot held liable for rendering
deficient service - V.M. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Sh. Lachman Dass, 2002(1) CPC 38 Chd.
Original manufacturer is not a necessary party in a complaint filed under the Consumer Act 1991 CPC 310 Hr.
Manufacturers fault - OP manufacturer could use packaging material for Gutka in August, 2008 instead of
September, 2008 as per Rule 6 (1) of Rule, 1977 OP not liable for deficiency in service - 2012(1) CPC 554 N.C.
Manufacturer/dealer - Consumer cannot be made to suffer on account of litigation pending between
manufacturer and dealer - 2002(1) CPC 283 N.C.
No name of manufacturer including month and year of manufacturing was given on package of mango pickles -
Manufacturer/dealer liable for deficiency in service - 2002(1) CPC 491 Kar.
Manufacturers liability - Dealer failed to supply PCO machine against draft of Rs. 22,900 nor amount was
refunded - Directed to refund the amount - Manufacturer not liable for deficiency in service - 2000(2) CPC 346 Chd.
A manufacturer is not liable in case of sale of goods when such goods are damaged due to an accident - 1997(2)
CPC 535 N.C.
Car not delivered to complainant who demanded refund of deposits - Manufacturers liability extends only to the
extent of amount received by him - Fiat India Ltd. v. Mrs. Amra Aggarwal, 2002(2) CPC 222 Chd.
CD player purchased from dealer found to be defective - Manufacturer also jointly liable for deficient service -
2006(2) CPC 472 H.P.
Delay of one year in informing about bursting of pressure cooker - Manufacturer held not liable - 2000(1) CPC 1
S.C.
Manufacturer cannot be allowed to leave consumers in the lurch by taking shelters of technicalities -
Dealer/manufacturer held liable for delivering defective refrigerator - 1997(2) CPC 120 Pb.
No price printed on the Kodak Film package - Manufacture/distributor held liable for deficient service - 2000(1)
CPC 9 S.C.
Non-installation of machinery resulting in loss to complainant - Manufacturer is bound to do the needful when
dealer is acting as his agent - 2008(2) CPC 95 N.C.
Not only the dealer but also manufacturer should be held liable for loss caused due to defective scooter sold to the
consumer - 1999(2) CPC 218 Pb.
--Tractor could not work due to defect in its battery - Dealer alone, not manufacturer, is liable to compensate -
1999(2) CPC 165 Pb.
Manufacturing date - An item does not become defective by mere fact that its sale is preceding the date of
manufacturing - Urisan Cosmetics Ltd. v. O.P. Sharma, 1998(2) CPC 302 Hr.
Manufacturing defect - 6 years old vehicle extensively used for more than 75,000 Kms. - Replacement of
vehicle unjustified - Compensation of Rs. 40,000 with replacement of engine justified - 2007(2) CPC 565 N.C.
A dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect of a vehicle - Responsibility lies on manufactures only -
2004(2) CPC 551 Kerala
--A transit damaged car developed erosion due to poor quality of sheet before painting Replacement of car after
4 years unjustified Reasonable compensation only was awarded 2009(3) CPC 529 N.C.
--Air Conditioner not working after 6 repeated repairs - Manufacturing defect stand proved - 2002(1) CPC 73 Chd.
Allegation of giving consumption of petrol by scooter not supported by documentary evidence - Complainant not
entitled to any relief as no manufacturing defect was proved - 2006(2) CPC 570 Hr.
--Allegation of manufacturing defect not supported by reliable documents Vehicle duly attended by OP during
warranty period Order of replacement set aside Vehicle only to be made roadworthy by removing the defect 2009(3)
CPC 641 N.C.
Alleged defect in machine for manufacturing concrete blocks not proved as all accessories were not purchased
from opposite party - Defect in machine not proved - 2001(1) CPC 371 U.P.
47

Appellant dealer carried necessary repairs free of charge during warranty period - Replacement of vehicle cannot
be directed - Only the defective parts to be replaced - 2006(1) CPC 652 S.C.
--As per statements of the expert and other witnesses, no manufacturing defect in car proved Order of
Fora below awarding compensation of Rs. 1 lac set aside - 2013(3) CPC 435 N.C.
--Auto analyser purchased from OP failed to function within 15 days of its purchase Refund of machine price with
6% interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000 upheld - 2013(1) CPC 374 N.C.
Auto rickshaw purchased from O.P. found to be defective - O.P. directed to refund the price or replacement of
vehicle - 2005(2) CPC 513 N.C.
--Auto Rickshaw purchased from OP found to be defective OP directed to compensate complainant as
manufacturing defect was detected during warranty period 2011(2) CPC 573 N.C.
Auto Rickshaw suffering from manufacturing defect - Consumer held entitled to relief which was maintained in
revision - 2002(1) CPC 286 N.C.
--Automobiles purchased from OP suffering from manufacturing defect as per concurrent finding of fora below
Replacement of vehicles rightly ordered 2011(2) CPC 298 N.C.
--Averments regarding manufacturing defect of car not supported by the evidence on record OP tried its best to
remove minor defect of noise etc No relief can be allowed to complainant - 2012(2) CPC 383 N.C.
Award of Rs. 60,000 for manufacturing defect being on higher side - The sum was reduced to Rs. 36,000 only in
the facts of the case - 2006(2) CPC 474 H.P.
--Blast in car alleged by complainant/respondent alleging manufacturing defect Complainant was satisfied with the
repairs carried by appellants mechanic Signatures on Job Card under pressure cannot be accepted Manufacturer not
liable for deficiency in service 2009(3) CPC 559 Pb.
--Block of cylinder had burst and 3 pistons of engine of truck had ceased during warranty period OP directed to
pay compensation of Rs. 97,482 for deficient services Order upheld - 2013(2) CPC 142 N.C.
Breakdown of inkjet printer and rewinding machine with frequent blockage of nozzle plate within 12 days of
operation - Manufacturing defect proved - OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 45000 with 6% interest - 2007(2) CPC
290 N.C.
--Car in question caught fire within 4 days of its purchase State Commission concluded that there was a
manufacturing defect without appreciation of proper evidence Impugned order set aside 2011(2) CPC 7 N.C.
--Car purchased at Delhi OP having a Branch Office at Ambala where repairs were carried Cause of action arose
at Delhi Ambala court has no territorial jurisdiction simply that repairs were carried there 2011(1) CPC 290 Hr.
--Car purchased for huge amount of Rs. 7,67,053 had to be taken to workshop again and again but defects could not
be removed OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with cost of Rs. 10,000 for delivering defective car - 2012(1)
CPC 688 Pb.
--Car purchased from OP found to be suffering from manufacturing defect OP directed to refund its price with
compensation, cost and interest - 2012(1) CPC 93 N.C.
--Car purchased from OP suffered from manufacturing defects due to which complainant had to visit the workshop
for 17-18 times Compensation awarded by the State Commission is enhanced to Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 25,000 - 2013(2)
CPC 650 N.C.
--Car purchased from OP suffering several defects causing great harassment to the complainant Compensation of
Rs. 32,000 enhanced to Rs. 82,000 2011(1) CPC 105 N.C.
--Car purchased in open auction sale Petitioner cannot claim warranty for replacement of component
Compensation allowed by State Commission set aside 2010(1) CPC 646 N.C.
Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase OP demanded Rs. 65,000 for removing defect within warranty
period Car was detained for 6 and half years OP directed to refund price of car with interest/cost - 2010(2) CPC 193
Pb.
Car suffered inherent manufacturing defects - Opposite Party directed to refund price by deducting Rs. 20,000
plus Rs. 50,000 as compensation with interest - 2005(1) CPC 576 Chd.
Certain parts including Piston, Oil seal and Shaft etc. had to be replaced within ten months of purchase - Dealer
and manufacturer are jointly liable for defect - 2008(2) CPC 380 N.C.
--Chassis of the van purchased from dealer was found to be broken - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 20,000 and Rs.
10,000 per month to complainant - 1999(1) CPC 621 H.P.
Complainant a poor farmer purchased power tiller with the help of bank loan - It was suffering from
manufacturing defect - OP directed to pay amount of Rs. 1,15,000 towards bank loan with cost - 2008(2) CPC 471 N.C.
48

--Complainant after plying the vehicle for 5 years alleged that model 2004 instead 2005 was supplied by the
dealer Order of replacement of vehicle unjustified - Compensation of Rs. 1 lacs in lump sum upheld - 2012(1) CPC 258
N.C.
--Complainant alleged manufacturing defect after distance of 10000 km covered by vehicle He did not avail
service of OP as balance amount was outstanding against him No manufacturing defect proved in the case 2009(3)
CPC 486 Hr.
--Complainant could not prove by cogent evidence that replaced tractor was old one Mere mention of
two numbers of the engine by inadvertence does not prove that tractor was old Relief declined - 2013(1) CPC
37 N.C.
--Complainant could not prove manufacturing defect as she had no mechanical knowledge No expert opinion was
placed on record O.P. not liable for deficiency in service - 2012(1) CPC 263 N.C.
--Complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect by expert evidence Only minor defect OP directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant 2011(2) CPC 120 N.C.
--Complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in Interlocking Nail asked for union of bone Did not confirm
from other doctor for 13 months any defect in the item used in the operation of leg Substandard quality of goods not
proved - 2009(2) CPC 702 N.C.
Complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in vehicle - OP replaced vehicle with new one showing
goodwill gesture - OP cannot be burdened with payment of compensation - 2006(1) CPC 523 Chd.
--Complainant failed to prove that OP had assured 80 KM in a single charge of battery Allegedly vehicle
run by battery covered only 15-20 KM OP is not liable for deficient service in absence of cogent evidence -
2013(1) CPC 526 N.C.
--Complainant failed to prove that OP had assured 80 KM in a single charge of battery Allegedly vehicle run by
battery covered only 15-20 KM OP is not liable for deficient service in absence of cogent evidence 2012(3) CPC 611
N.C.
--Complainant failed to prove that tyre purchased from OP had any manufacturing defect Onus not discharged by
any cogent evidence Relief declined 2011(2) CPC 282 N.C.
--Complainant filed a vexatious complaint alleging manufacturing defect in car which could not be proved
Complaint dismissed with cost of Rs. 15,000 2009(3) CPC 289 N.C.
--Complainant had to go repeatedly to workshop for repairs of car Replacement of car declined Compensation of
Rs. 40,000 with cost of Rs. 10,000 allowed - 2012(2) CPC 407 N.C.
Complainant had to pay Rs. 18,416 for repairs to O.P. during warranty period - O.P. directed to get the vehicle
repaired without charging any payment - 2008(1) CPC 135 H.P.
--Complainant left the new tractor with the dealer for repairs and was not taken back He did not act like a prudent
man OP not liable for deficiency in service - 2009(2) CPC 273 N.C.
--Complainant made no representation to OP Corporation within warranty period to repair the TV Set alleged to be
defective Allegation not proved Relief declined 2011(1) CPC 325 N.C.
--Complainant not complying with directions issued by financier to return defective machines - Only manufacturer
and not financier is liable for supplying defective machinery - 2008(1) CPC 323 N.C.
Complainant purchased a car which was destroyed in fire along with baggage due to manufacturing defect -
Replacement of car not sufficient - OP directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh with compensation and cost of burnt baggage - 2006(1)
CPC 279 Kar.
Complainant purchased analyzer from O.P. which did not give proper reading even for a single day - O.P. directed
to refund the price alongwith compensation and cost - 2005(2) CPC 553 Kar.
Complainant refused to take delivery of vehicle after it was repaired by OP showing his intention only for refund
of its price - Case of manufacturing defects not established - 2007(1) CPC 59 N.C.
--Complainant should have sought permission from the Court before selling the defective vehicle When vehicle
was sold it was not possible to establish by cogent evidence that it was suffering from manufacturing defect Complaint
dismissed - 2014(3) CPC 176 N.C.
--Complainant suffered deficiency in service on part of injuries due to manufacturing defect in gas stove which was
not replaced despite requests O.P. rightly held liable for payment of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation - 2014(2) CPC 122 Pb.
--Complainant suffered loss due to bursting of tyres of lorry caused on account of alleged manufacturing defect
Expert found no defect on tyres Relief granted by the Fora below set aside - 2012(2) CPC 624 N.C.
--Complainant suffered mental agony due to manufacturing defect of car OP dealer directed to remove the defect
and pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation Manufacturer is not liable - 2014(3) CPC 412 N.C.
49

--Complainants wife and daughter died in gas cylinder blast Dealer and manufacturer of gas cylinder directed to
pay Rs. 4 lacs for death of complainants wife and Rs. 1 lacs for death of his daughter 2009(3) CPC 121 Pb.
--Complete service given to vehicle to the satisfaction of consumer whenever required Manufacturing defect
cannot be proved on mere report of a mechanic who is not an Engineer Order of replacement of vehicle set aside
2009(3) CPC 483 Hr.
Cracks found in body diesel tank and tyres of the vehicle - Change of diesel tank and repair of cracks in body
except the tyres directed - 2006(1) CPC 596 Raj.
Damaged car was driven to workshop instead by towing which damaged the engine due to fault of driver - Place
of accident falsely stated by complainant - Relief declined - 2007(1) CPC 167 Chd.
Defect - 6 lacs copies were Xeroxed when defect was alleged after period of warranty - O.P. cannot be held liable
for delivering machine with manufacturing defect - 2004(1) CPC 171 Chd.
--Defect Generator engine develop during warranty period OP could not show that allegation was mala fide
State Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs Order upheld in revision - 2012(2) CPC 551 N.C.
--Defect detected after vehicle had covered 34000 KM after 13 months of purchase Manufacturing defect in
vehicle cannot be presumed Relief declined - 2014(3) CPC 392 N.C.
Defect detected in scooter purchased from OP and could not be rectified despite repairs - OP directed to pay
compensation in lump sum amounting to Rs. 20,000 - 2008(2) CPC 672 N.C.
--Defect found in machine purchased for commercial purpose within warranty period OP directed to pay entire
cost of Rs. 4 lacs as cost of machine - 2009(1) CPC 461 N.C.
Defect found in three wheeler Engine was replaced but defect still subsisting OP directed to refund price of
Rs. 1,89,000 with compensation of Rs. 53,000 or replace the vehicle - 2010(2) CPC 676 H.P.
Defect in a EPABX Telephone system found during extended period for warranty - OP directed to refund price of
system with 12% interest - 2006(1) CPC 517 S.C.
Defect in certain parts of car rectified by OP dealer - Only payment of adequate compensation and not
replacement of car justified - 2006(2) CPC 733 Hr.
--Defect in goods purchased for commercial purpose developed within warranty period - Complainant is a consumer
- 2007(2) CPC 578 N.C.
Defect in scooter was pointed out 2 years after purchase of scooter - OP not liable for deficiency in service -
Defect cannot be proved after such a long period 2003(2) CPC 574 N.C.
Defect in vehicle corroborated by report of mechanic was not denied in written statement - Proceedings under
section 13-C of C. P. Act not necessary - 2005(2) CPC 427 N.C.
--Defect in vehicle due to lack of maintenance on the part of complainant who did not avail even free
service of vehicle OP not at fault- Relief declined - 2013(1) CPC 250 N.C.
Defect of motor bicycle could not be removed despite 10 attempts - Manufacturing defects stands proved - Refund
of price with interest ordered - 2005(2) CPC 169 N.C.
Defect of motorcycle comprising starting trouble and low mileage etc. could not be removed dispite repair -
Dealer and manufacturer are liable for deficiency in service - 2006(1) CPC 226 N.C.
--Defect of vehicle removed with almost 50% replacement of engine Complaint filed again after vehicle had
covered 32,000 kms. Demand of replacement of vehicle or refund of cost not acceptable - 2009(1) CPC 134 N.C.
--Defective chasis of commercial vehicle not changed for long time OP rightly directed to change the chasis
Relief granted by the concurrent findings upheld 2012(3) CPC 68 N.C.
Defects in new luxury car could not be removed despite repeated repairs - OP rightly directed to refund entire cost
of vehicle with compensation - 2008(1) CPC 269 N.C.
Defects not rectified despite frequent repairs - Direction given if the defects not rectified to the satisfaction, the
appellants shall be severaly and jointly liable to return the amount of the depreciated value - 2008(3) CPC 100 M.P.
--Defects not removed by replacing the parts - Deduction made from compensation due to use of vehicle - 2004(2)
CPC 166 N.C.
--Delay in delivery of vehicle due to acts of dealer alone Manufacturer cannot be held liable but the dealer alone
2009(3) CPC 197 N.C.
--District Forum allowed compensation of Rs. 10,000 which was reduced to Rs. 5,000 by State Commission without
justification Order of Forum restored 2011(2) CPC 310 N.C.
--District Forum Ferozpur granted relief to complainant But cause of action arose at Patiala wherefrom
car was purchased Simply that repairs were carried at Ferozpure does not confer any jurisdiction at District
Forum at Ferozpure Order set aside - 2013(3) CPC 550 Pb.
50

District Forum ordered replacement of car with compensation of Rs. 60,000 - Order based on unbelievable
evidence - Order set aside - 2007(1) CPC 93 U.P.
--District Forum ordered replacement of defective weigh bridge or to pay its price of Rs. 4,10,000 which was
reduced by the State Commission to Rs. 3,75,000 - As impugned order is just and proper, interference in revision declined
- 2012(2) CPC 139 N.C.
--District Forum ordered replacement of engine of vehicle with compensation of Rs. 40,000/- instead of replacement
of whole vehicle as prayed Impugned Order justified Appeal dismissed with costs 2011(1) CPC 641 U.P.
--District Forum passed its order of replacement of vehicle on the statement of interested witnesses produced at the
request of complainant Order not maintainable Expert engineer appointed to rectify the defect within 10 days
2012(3) CPC 192 Hr.
--Driver of vehicle did not take necessary steps when meter started showing overheating Meter not proved to be
defective OP not liable for manufacturing defect in vehicle 2009(3) CPC 593 H.P.
--Electricity current passing through car alleged by complainant Replacement of vehicle after 11 years by
Consumer Fora is unjustified 2009(3) CPC 249 N.C.
--Engine of bus stopped to function within one month of its purchase OP directed to replace its engine with
enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 - 2012(1) CPC 496 H.P.
Engine of car required new ID plate fixed in the engine - Amendment in registration certificate without making
any change in car consented by police - Amendment without fixing a new ID plate upheld - 2007(1) CPC 688 N.C.
Engine of tractor necessitated reboring of engine within six months - OP directed to replace the tractor with brand
new one free of cost - 2007(1) CPC 497 N.C.
EPABX system suffered from manufacturing defect during warranty period - Complainant entitled to relief even
after expiry of warranty period - 2001(1) CPC 474 Ker.
--Expert had not produced expertise certificate to prove his capability to give opinion on manufacturing
defect Order of Fora below ordering replacement of vehicle set aside - 2013(3) CPC 76 N.C.
Failure of self starting system of scooter - It cannot be termed as manufacturing defect - 2002(1) CPC 294 Chd.
--Fiat Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase Trouble continued even after replacement of engine OP
dealer directed to refund Rs. 6,69,187 price of car with life time tax and installments paid with 12% interest to
complainant 2011(1) CPC 39 S.C.
--Fora below allowed supply of ABS free of charge in violation of Motor Vehicle Rules Even defect in brake not
proved Relief granted by Fora below set aside - 2014(1) CPC 53 N.C.
--Fora below granted relief of Rs. 102973/- against manufacturer only for defect in vehicle Order modified to the
extent that liability should be shared equally by manufacturer and the dealer with further enhancement of additional relief
of Rs. 40,000 - 2013(2) CPC 466 N.C.
Frequent failure and break down in machinery affected payment of installment payable by the complainant - OP
held liable to refund purchase price with interest including penal interest - 2008(1) CPC 370 N.C.
Function of submersible pump affected due to improper installation of motor - No manufacturing defect proved -
2004(1) CPC 628 T.N.
Half engine replaced - No engine to show consumption of mobile as result of any manufacturing defect - Option
to get engine replaced - 2008(3) CPC 27 N.C.
In the absence of expert opinion u/s 13 (1) (c) of the Act, it cannot be concluded that vehicle is having any
manufacturing defect - 2010(2) CPC 67 N.C.
--Instead of removing the defect of machine through mechanic OP repudiated the claim Order of Consumer Fora
granting adequate relief upheld Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000 2012(3) CPC 366 N.C.
--Insured vehicle broke into two pieces in accident resulting in death of complainants parents due to high speed
between 112 to 179 km per hour No manufacturing defect proved Relief declined - 2010(3) CPC 702 N.C.
It is manufacturer and not the dealer who should be held liable for manufacturing defect of a motor vehicle -
2006(1) CPC 415 N.C.
--It is settled law that if defect is found in a specific part of vehicle, replacement of whole vehicle is not justified -
Only defective part should be replaced - 2012(2) CPC 1 N.C.
--It is well settled that for any manufacturing defect in a product, it is the manufacturer who is liable and not the
dealer Restoration of revision petition due to non prosecution denied due to unsatisfactory reasons for delay - 2012(1)
CPC 564 N.C.
--Knocking problem in car started within one month of its purchase which could not be removed despite many
repairs - OP directed to replace the vehicle or refund its price with interest and costs - 2008(2) CPC 596 H.P.
--L & T machine purchased for leveling and cutting for using land for agriculturing purpose Plea of commercial use
51

of machine not proved Complaint is maintainable - 2010(3) CPC 270 H.P.

Laser printers having manufacturing defect - Manufacturing and dealer held liable for deficiency in service -
2001(1) CPC 499 Ker.
--Leakage of water during rainy season from beading of wind screen of vehicle could not be said to be
manufacturing defect - Compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded for the loss, inconvenience and harassment - 2009(1) CPC
231 N.C.
--Loading machine, purchased with the help of Bank loan suffered with manufacturing defect Loan could
not be paid Bank repossessed machine Bank cannot be ordered to pay entire cost with margin money
Manufacturer was directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs in lump sum - 2013(3) CPC 107 N.C.
Machine purchased for building repair found to be defective not returned by OP for ten years - OP directed to
refund its price with 10% interest and compensation of Rs. 20,000 - 2006(2) CPC 292 N.C.
Machine purchased from OP did not work even after repairs - Replacement of machine or payment of Rs. 93,165
with 6% interest upheld - 2007(1) CPC 431 N.C.
Machine purchased having manufacturing defect detected during warranty period - Dealer directed to pay cost
incurred on repair with 9% interest - 2002(1) CPC 644 N.C.
--Machine repairs Complainant paid Rs. 30 lacs to OP for repairs of heavy power point which was not done
satisfactorily Repairs got done subsequently at the cost of Rs. 7.5 lacs only OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50
lacs 2011(2) CPC 200 N.C.
--Machinery and equipment supplied by OP proved to be defective Order of Fora below awarding
compensation of Rs. 42.70 lacs with cost of Rs. 1 lacs found to be justified payable by the appellant /OP
Order upheld - 2013(1) CPC 131 S.C.
Machinery purchased with the help of loan proved to be defective within six months of its installation - OP
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lacs with cost of Rs. 10,000 - 2008(3) CPC 102 Raj.
--Manufacturer cannot be compelled to replace the vehicle unless purchaser has pointed out and proved the allegation
of manufacturing defect 2011(1) CPC 388 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect alleged in Tata Bus which was purchased for commercial purpose Complainant not a
consumer Relief declined 2011(2) CPC 441 N.C.
Manufacturing defect except cost or replacement of tyre from distant place not proved Relief except amount
incurred on replacement of tyre denied Compensation of Rs. 10,000 with interest awarded - 2010(2) CPC 705 H.P.
Manufacturing defect found in car purchased from OP - Manufacturer and dealer held jointly and severally liable
for deficiency in service - Replacement of car by Forum directed - Replacement of car for manufacturing defect directed -
Order modified to the extent that replacement of defective parts was directed in appeal - 2006(2) CPC 261 Raj.
--Manufacturing defect in car alleged after three years covering distance of 60000 KM Concurrent findings given
against petitioner OP not liable for any deficiency in service Revision dismissed 2012(3) CPC 206 N.C.
Manufacturing defect in the hardware supplied to the consumer Manufacturer is primarily responsible for the
consequent liability of replacement/repair/refund of the cost - 2010(2) CPC 177 N.C.
Manufacturing defect in vehicle proved - Motor company directed to carry out repair free of cost and pay
compensation - 2003(1) CPC 322 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect in vehicle proved as corroborated by the report of Mechanical Engineer
Respondent cannot escape its liability by raising vague technical objections Relief granted to complainant -
2013(3) CPC 499 H.P.
--Manufacturing defect in vehicle well proved, as defect could not be removed despite repeated repairs Dealer and
manufacturer jointly and severely liable to compensate the complainant - 2009(2) CPC 55 N.C.
--Maruti Vehicle purchased from OP found to be suffering manufacturing defect OP directed to pay compensation
of Rs. 3 lacs Order of replacement passed by District Forum modified - 2014(1) CPC 156 N.C.
Mere giving excessive noise by a diesel car is not sufficient to prove any manufacturing defect - Relief declined -
2007(1) CPC 298 N.C.
--Merely that vehicle was taken for service for one or two times to workshop is not enough to prove any
manufacturing defect Order of replacement correctly set aside - 2013(1) CPC 267 N.C.
--Merely that vehicle was taken to service station for repairs several times does not prove a manufacturing defect
except to claim a compensation for causing inconvenience to complainant 2010(1) CPC 175 N.C.
--Minor defect in vehicle does not prove existence of manufacturing defect therein - 2003(1) CPC 490 Chd.
Minor defects such as oil leakage etc. does not constituted a manufacturing defect - Savitri Verma (Dr.) v. M/s
Metro Motors, 2008(1) CPC 140 Chd.
52

Motor cycle in question suffering from manufacturing defect giving less mileage - Refund of price of vehicle
upheld - 2006(2) CPC 648 N.C.
Motor vehicle purchased from O.P. having manufacturing defect - Refund of price with interest justified - 2005(2)
CPC 327 N.C.
Moulding machine not functioning properly despite rectification of defects Refund of cost allowed with
compensation and interest - 2007(1) CPC 8 N.C.
Nitrogen generator failed to function properly during warrantee period - OP directed to pay compensation of Rs.
30,29,477.50 with 9% interest - 2006(2) 449 CPC N.C.
--No cogent reasons was given by OP regarding overheating of engine of car Defects could not be removed to the
satisfaction of complainant Relief granted for committing unfair trade practice upheld - 2014(1) CPC 312 N.C.
--No expert evidence in support of alleged defect in vehicle produced on record - Simply that vehicle was taken for
repairs off and on is not sufficient to prove the defect Relief declined - 2009(1) CPC 686 N.C.
--No manufacturing defect found in tractor as per report of expert except requirement of some repairs Replacement
of tractor ordered by Fora below unjustified Order set aside 2009(3) CPC 681 N.C.
--No manufacturing defect in Motor Cycle proved from evidence on record Order of State Commission directing
petitioner to replace vehicle set aside - 2013(2) CPC 661 N.C.
--No qualified witness produced to prove defect in chassis in three wheelers - OP not liable for any manufacturing
defects - Relief declined - 2006(2) CPC 30 N.C.
Noise in the engine from the very beginning - Removal of timing belt and timing tensioner found unsatisfactory -
Replacement of engine is the only remedy - 2002(1) CPC 103 Pb.
O.P. replaced the defective parts and gave satisfactory service - Order of District Forum directing replacement of
vehicle not sustainable - 2005(2) CPC 628 Hr.
--Offset machine purchased from OP proved to be defective Refund of its price (Rs. 2,82,000) rightly ordered
Petition dismissed with penal cost of Rs. 10,000 - 2012(1) CPC 238 N.C.
--Old car sold alleging it as a new model by respondent No. 2 on principal to principal basis Respondent No. 2 not
acting as an agent of respondent No.1 (manufacturer) Respondent No. 2 (Dealer) alone is guilty of unfair trade practice -
2011(3) CPC 547 N.C.
--Old vehicle sold to respondent without disclosing actual date of manufacturing Petitioner/OP rightly directed to
replace the vehicle with a new one Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 199 N.C.
--Once it is proved that job card that vehicle is being taken into repair shop, burden shifts to manufacturer that
vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect - 2009(1) CPC 82 Delhi
--Only day to day defects in running of car were found which were removed by timely repairs Parts covered under
warranty were replaced free of costs OP not liable for any deficient service 2011(1) CPC 217 N.C.
--Only minor defects, as malfunctioning of cars fan cannot be made the basis of a claim on ground of
malfunctioning defect in vehicle Such defects can be removed by repairs - 2013(1) CPC 536 N.C.
--Onus to prove any manufacturing defect in vehicle lies upon the complainant Defect in vehicle without expert
evidence not proved Replacement of vehicle rejected 2011(2) CPC 126 N.C.
--Onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the product would be on consumer buyer - 2010(2) CPC 720
N.C.
--OP could not remove defects of vehicle though repairs were carried 11 times OP rightly directed to refund Rs. 3
lacs with compensation and cost by State Commission Order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 562 N.C.
--OP directed to refund vehicle price or refund its price with 9% interest for suffering from manufacturing defect on
purchase of the vehicle Complaint being hopelessly time barred relief was rightly set aside 2011(2) CPC 478 N.C.
--OP failed to carry necessary repairs of vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect Nor any certificate of fitness
was issued Order of State Commission directing OP to carry the repairs is justified - 2013(2) CPC 539 N.C.
--OP failed to remove defect despite an assurance that needful would be done if complaint was withdrawn
OP directed to refund full price with 7% interest after withdrawal of complaint - 2013(3) CPC 90 N.C.
--OP failed to replace engine kit as per assurance given in this regard Order of fora below directing replacement of
engine kit or its cost upheld - 2009(1) CPC 470 N.C.
--OP had changed engine of Auto Rickshaw twice but defect could not be removed Relief of Rs. 50,000/- granted
by the State Commission held to be adequate Further enhancement in amount declined - 2013(2) CPC 549 N.C.
--OP removed defects of vehicle by changing its fuel pump Vehicle sold during pendency of appeal
without permission of court - Complainant is not a consumer after sale of vehicle - 2013(3) CPC 166 N.C.
53

--OP removed minor defects of tractor when complainant approached for this purpose Tractor was not taken from
workshop even after repair Order of refund of price for manufacturing defect quashed Only compensation of Rs.
50,000 allowed 2009(3) CPC 373 Pb.
OP supplied vehicle with defect with engine of lesser capacity - He cannot absolved of liability by saying that
vehicle was supplied by manufacturer unless he is acting as an agent - 2007(2) CPC 66 Chhattisgarh
--OPs sold vehicle prepared by assembling parts of old vehicles Manufacturing defect well established OPs
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 with cost of Rs. 45,000 - 2014(3) CPC 79 N.C.
--Order of Fora below directing replacement of tractor tyres was against report of engineer Order set aside -
2010(3) CPC 247 N.C.
--Order of replacement of vehicle after running more than 40,000 km is not sustainable as manufacturing defect is
not proved 2009(3) CPC 168 N.C.
Over heating of engine due to fault of complainant who caused fitment of AC in non AC car - Over heating of
engine due to this reason does not tantamount manufacturing defects - 2007(1) CPC 137 N.C.
--Passengers vehicle found with manufacturing defect OP to carry repairs free of cost and deliver vehicle with one
year warranty by passing consent order Order upheld 2011(1) CPC 240 N.C.
--Petition between appellant No. 1 and 2 were on the basis of Principal to Principal basis and not on
Principal and agent basis No manufacturing defect proved in car Relief granted by State Commission set
aside - 2013(3) CPC 124 N.C.
--Petitioner failed to prove that an old car with painted body was supplied to him by OP Replacement of vehicle
unjustified A lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000 upheld - 2012(2) CPC 371 N.C.
--Petitioner/OP supplied bad quality of engine oil causing defect in engine Fora below rightly granted relief as
petitioner had not appeared before consumer authorities Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 321 N.C.
Petty amount of Rs. 5 and 40 spent on repairs of vehicle - Manufacturing defect not established - 2007(1) CPC
379 N.C.
--Propagation of sikh religion is not a commercial purpose Relief granted for manufacturing defect in vehicle
upheld as complaint was maintainable under C.P. Act 2011(2) CPC 357 N.C.
--Rear axle of truck had broken down which was replaced by OP free of cost Vehicle not suffering from
manufacturing defect Compensation of Rs. 61,691/- awarded by Fora below set aside - 2011(3) CPC 110 N.C.
Refrigerator was replaced on allegation of complainant - Again replacement cannot be ordered on his bald
statement - 2003(1) CPC 235 Chd.
Repair of horns and locks etc. were carried on request of complainant - Request for replacement of vehicle or
refund of price not acceptable - 2007(1) CPC 437 N.C.
Repeated repairs of car survey warranty period - Defect in car can be inferred - 2003(2) CPC 194 Chd.
--Replaced twice-third one also defective Dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect in the VCP
particularly when it was not given to the dealer for repairs - 2009(2) CPC 64 N.C.
--Replacement Job Cards placed on record by OPs to prove that repair of tractor was done to satisfaction of
complainant but prior to sale of tractor OPs admission that defects in tractor were removed, not proved - Provisions of S.
13 of C.P. Act not applicable - 2012(1) CPC 619 N.C.
--Replacement of defective vehicle ordered by District Forum and upheld in appeal Revision with delay does not
warrant any interference Delaying tactics to be avoided 2010(1) CPC 510 N.C.
--Replacement of vehicle on ground of price on account of manufacturing defect after vehicle had run for 4 years is
not justified Only repair expenses can be awarded - 2009(1) CPC 39 N.C.
--Research institution carried inspection of vehicle with consent of both parties Objection of raising issue of bias
by either party is without substance Complaint dismissed 2010(1) CPC 98 N.C.
--Sale of vehicle by complainant during pendency of consumer proceedings Matter was knowingly concealed
Relief granted by Fora below set aside - 2014(1) CPC 68 N.C.
Several defects in Indica car purchased for Rs. 2,93,125 appeared within one year - Replacement of engine with
compensation of Rs. 15,000 upheld - 2005(1) CPC 108 Delhi
Several defects were detected in that Backhoe Loader machine with broken Elbow - Plea of mishandling repelled -
OP to refund price of machine - 2006(2) CPC 171 N.C.
Size of Chassis and Engine alleged to be 126 inch instead of 142 inch - Allegation not supported by record -
Manufacturing defect not proved - Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Prabhulal Maru, 2005(1) CPC 8 N.C.
--State Commission granted partial relief to petitioner on the basis of allegation of alleged defective engine of
harvestor combine Bills with discrepancies were made the basis of relief which could be quashed but for failure of
respondent of filing an appeal Impugned Order upheld 2011(2) CPC 581 N.C.
54

Sunglasses used for number of years - Finding on manufacturing defect unjustified - 2004(1) CPC 169 Chd.
--Swelab machine purchased by hospital found to be non-functional during warranty period - OP directed to refund
price of machine with 10% interest - 2007(2) CPC 487 N.C.
System installed in computer centre Became defective after one year and was not repaired Deficiency in
service proved OP directed to pay compensation in lump sum of Rs. 5 lacs with 9% p.a. interest - 2010(2) CPC 521
N.C.
Tata safari purchased from OP was found to be defective and of old type - OP directed to replace the vehicle or
refund its price with cost and interest - Hind Motors India Ltd. v. Lakhbir Singh, 2008(3) CPC 22 Pb.
--There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner manufacturer Order of Fora below
holding petitioner liable for manufacturing defect in tractor set aside 2011(1) CPC 590 N.C.
--Three wheelers purchased from OP suffered from manufacturing defect as its chasis were damaged very soon OP
directed to replace the chasis and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation 2012(3) CPC 127 N.C.
--Tractor purchased from OP was not capable to plough the field and also consuming the excess fuel Order of
replacement of tractor or refund its price alongwith Rs. 55,000/- as compensation and cost upheld 2010(1) CPC 490
N.C.
--Tractor purchased from OP was suffering from snag of manufacturing defect Refund of tractor price
with 9% interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000 justified - 2013(1) CPC 330 H.P.
--Tractors defect could not be removed despite repeated repairs Refund of 90% price with cost and compensation
of Rs. 12,000 justified Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 17 N.C.
Trouble started in scooter - Manufacturing defect in absence of Expert opinion not proved - Compensation of Rs.
3,500 justified - 2005(1) CPC 238 Raj.
--Truck engine started giving trouble within one month of its purchase Petitioner was rightly ordered to replace the
vehicle or to refund its price with interest compensation and cost Order upheld - 2014(2) CPC 215 N.C.
--Tyres of vehicle excluded for insurance policy Accident caused due to defective tyres Manufacturer/dealer of
vehicle not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant 2010(1) CPC 7 N.C.
--Ultrasound machine valued Rs. 13 lacs failed to function properly Concurrent findings of Fora below directing
OP to pay Rs. 5,20,000 with compensation of Rs. 50,000 justified Objection of mishandling of machine repelled -
2012(2) CPC 364 N.C.
--Various machines supplied by OP proved to be defective OP failed to carry repairs during warranty period OP
directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 42.70 lacs for negligence in rendering service - 2012(1) CPC 317 N.C.
--Vehicle not giving speed of 100 kmph though it should have given the speed atleast 126 kmph Manufacturing
defect well proved Relief granted by State Commission upheld 2010(1) CPC 101 N.C.
--Vehicle purchased for Rs. 16 lacs developed defect after covering 34431 Kms Manufacturing defect well proved
Replacement of engine instead of vehicle after 10 years with Rs. 5 lacs compensation with cost held to be adequate
relief - 2012(2) CPC 357 Pb.
Vehicle purchased found to be defective and was still lying with O.P. for repairs - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs
as price of vehicle with litigation cost Rs. 2,500 - 2005(2) CPC 573 U.P.
--Vehicle purchased from OP found to be defective within warranty period Violation of terms of policy not proved
OP directed to repair the vehicle to make it roadworthy - 2009(2) CPC 322 N.C.
Vehicle suffering for manufacturing defect, it being a clear case of res ipsa loquitor - No need to refer vehicle to a
third party for giving an opinion - OPs liable to pay price of vehicle with interest and costs - 2008(2) CPC 579 N.C.
Vehicle suffering from several troubles was delivered to dealer for repair which he went on using it for his own
purpose - Both manufacturer and dealer directed to refund its price with 12% interest - 2006(1) CPC 646 N.C.
Vehicle taken to workshop on number of occasions - Defects not rectified - Refund of price of vehicle along with
compensation awarded by Distt. Forum justified - 2008(3) CPC 33 N.C.
--Vehicle with warranty found to be defective just after its purchase OP directed to refund its price Other
compensation and interest quashed - 2009(1) CPC 310 N.C.
--Wagon started giving noise but defect not removed No manufacturing defect proved by any expert evidence
Relief declined Impugned order upheld 2011(2) CPC 623 N.C.
--Water pipe purchased from OP dealer having leakage of water at several places Replacement or refund of price
with compensation justified - 2012(1) CPC 285 N.C.
--Weighing scale machine suffering from manufacturing defect OP falsely denied full payment of machine OP
directed to replace the machine or refund the price with 14% interest - 2011(3) CPC 96 N.C.
--When defect of vehicle can be rectified by technician by doing the repairs job, replacement of vehicle or
refund of price is not justified - 2013(1) CPC 233 N.C.
55

Wrong alignment and defect in crank and rear wheel - O.P. liable to pay Rs. 6,000 as cost and compensation -
Manufacturing defect not proved, so no replacement of vehicle - 2004(2) CPC 284 Chd.
Manufacturing liability - T.V. set found to be defective - Only manufacturer held liable to replace the set -
1999(1) CPC 642 Chd.
Mattresses with defect - Respondent gave in writing rates of mattresses which were purchased by
complainant - Respondent cannot be believed to say that he does not deal in mattresses - 1996(2) CPC 138 Hr.
Mechanical defect - Vehicle alleged to be defective sold during pendency of consumer proceedings
Complainant ceased to be a consumer Defect not proved by any expert Relief granted by the State Commission set
aside - 2014(1) CPC 161 N.C.
Mental agony - Entire engine assembly of scooter changed by dealer - Complainant awarded Rs. 10,000 for
suffering mental agony - 2002(1) CPC 298 Chd.
--Complainant suffered monetary loss and mental agony due to manufacturing defect of car OP directed to replace
engine of car with compensation of Rs. 40,000/- - Replacement of whole car denied 2011(1) CPC 641 U.P.
Mineral water - A Foreign Matter found floating in Knely mineral water bottle - Manufacturer held liable for
deficiency in services - 2005(1) CPC 523 Kar.
Mineral water bottle Two bottles with same quality and quantity of mineral water costing at Rs. 15/- and
8/- respectively OP Kinley Company failed to give satisfactory reply OP directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation
- 2009(2) CPC 626 Kar.
Mini School bus - Bus purchased to carry students and staff to School found to be defective - Purpose being of
commercial nature, complaint held not maintainable - 2006(1) CPC 678 Hr.
Mini tractor - Mini tractor having manufacturing defect - Both dealer and manufacturer directed to replace the
tractor - 2002(1) CPC 288 N.C.
Mishandling of machine - Mere allegation that machine in question was mishandled by unskilled workers,
does not absolve the dealer of deficient service - 1998(2) CPC 29 W. Bengal
Misrepresentation - A minor child mistaking the toilet soap as eatable consumed it and fell ill Manufacturer
not liable as Toilet Soap was clearly printed on the wrapper - 1998(1) CPC 47 Hr.
Mistake of staff Car purchased by the complainant was earlier booked in the name of other person which was
never delivered and his name remained in record due to mistake of staff Allegation that old car was sold to the
complainant not proved Relief declined - 2014(3) CPC 86 N.C.
Mobile defect - Mobile purchased from OP became non-functional after 2-3 months Relief of Rs. 2,700
granted by Forum enhanced to Rs. 4,200 in appeal 2009(3) CPC 586 Chd.
--Mobile purchased from OP started giving trouble within warranty period OP directed to repair the mobile set to
the appellants satisfaction Appeal allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000 - 2013(1) CPC 534 Pb.
Mobile repair - Mobile purchased from OP started giving trouble within warranty period OP directed to repair
the mobile set to the appellants satisfaction Appeal allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000 - 2013(1) CPC 534 Pb.
Modification of order - Manufacturing defect found in car purchased from OP - Manufacturer and dealer
held jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service - Replacement of car by Forum directed - Replacement of car for
manufacturing defect directed - Order modified to the extent that replacement of defective parts was directed in appeal -
2006(2) CPC 261 Raj.
--Main order could not be executed as Company had ceased to manufacture the vehicles and replacement was not
possible Order justified - 2014(3) CPC 605 N.C.
--Maruti Vehicle purchased from OP found to be suffering manufacturing defect OP directed to pay compensation
of Rs. 3 lacs Order of replacement passed by District Forum modified - 2014(1) CPC 156 N.C.
Monitors defect - Monitor purchased for running STD/PCO Plea of commercial purpose not established
Complainant for replacement of monitor allowed with costs - 2009(2) CPC 388 Pb.
--OP supplied defective monitor to the complainant Order of Fora below to refund its price with compensation and
cost upheld Act of unfair trade practice proved - 2014(3) CPC 47 N.C.
Motor Car - Purchaser is bound to disclose identity of real purchaser before taking delivery of car - 1997(1)
CPC 209 Chd.
Motor cycle booking - OP failed to give delivery of motor cycle due to termination of their agency
Complainant held entitled to payment of interest at the market rate i.e. 12% instead of 6% - 2013(2) CPC 153 N.C.
56

Motor Cycle defect - Defect in motor cycle could not be removed despite 3 services - Dealer directed to
replace it or refund its price - 2000(1) CPC 120 Chd.
Laboratory test - A motor cycle allegedly consuming excessive mobil oil, need not be put to laboratory test - 1991
CPC 310 Hr.
Minor defect in vehicle does not prove existence of manufacturing defect therein - 2003(1) CPC 490 Chd.
Motor cycle purchased was found to be defective - Both manufacturer and dealer held liable jointly and severally
to pay the price of motorcycle to complainant - 2002(1) CPC 651 N.C.
--No manufacturing defect in Motor Cycle proved from evidence on record Order of State Commission directing
petitioner to replace vehicle set aside - 2013(2) CPC 661 N.C.
Problem remained in speedometer and engine despite repairs - OP directed to replace the defective items or to pay
Rs. 15,000 with 12% p.a. interest - 2003(1) CPC 237 Chd.
Transaction between a dealer and the manufacturer are as principal to principal - Dealer not liable for late delivery
- 1994(2) CPC 80 N.C.
Wrong alignment and defect in crank and rear wheel - O.P. liable to pay Rs. 6,000 as cost and compensation -
Manufacturing defect not proved, so no replacement of vehicle - 2004(2) CPC 284 Chd.
Motor vehicle - Motor vehicle purchased from O.P. having manufacturing defect - Refund of price with interest
justified - 2005(2) CPC 327 N.C.
--Parts of damaged vehicle replaced with new purchased parts - No difference found in rates of parts - OP not liable
for deficiency in service - 2008(2) CPC 96 NC
Vehicle not delivered despite payment of booking amount - Manufacturing company and not the dealer is liable
for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 367 U.P.
Music system - Music system purchased from OP found to be defective - Directed O.P. to remove with cost and
compensation 2003(1) CPC 415 Chd.
Natural justice - An order passed against the manufacturer not arrayed as a party, cannot be sustained 1993
CPC 685 N.C.
Necessary party - Manufacturer not a necessary party in a complaint when there is no privity between the
complainant and the manufacturer - 1991 CPC 183 Delhi
Negligence - Petitioner/OP supplied bad quality of engine oil causing defect in engine Fora below rightly
granted relief as petitioner had not appeared before consumer authorities Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 321
N.C.
Non delivery of bus OP dealer failed to deliver bus booked in the name of complainant causing loss of
permit which was cancelled due to delayed delivery OP directed to pay enhanced claim of Rs. 25,000/- within 45 days -
2014(3) CPC 178 N.C.
Non-compliance of order - Order passed to repair or replace defective printer - Repair carried out -
Respondent cannot be prosecuted for non compliance of order - 2002(2) CPC 660 N.C.
Non installation of machine - OP delayed installation of detergent machine after purchase for one year
without any reason OP directed to refund price of machine with interest @ 9% and cost 2011(1) CPC 56 U.P.
Non-refund of price - O.P. failed to supply machine nor price was refunded - Consumer jurisdiction not
barred on the ground that defects without supply not proved - 2004(1) CPC 337 U.P.
Non supply of documents - OP failed to supply necessary documents despite payment of entire price of
tractor OP directed to supply documents before 7.12.2009 with cost of Rs. 25,000 - 2010(2) CPC 249 H.P.
Non supply of machinery OP refused to supply machinery despite receipt of payment as complainant had
presented fabricated and false quotations Relief granted by District Forum rightly set aside by State Commission
Impugned order upheld - 2014(2) CPC 272 N.C.
Non supply of spare parts - Complaint is maintainable when deficiency in supply of spare parts of
machinery was not made promptly Though complainants are not consumer due to engagement in commercial activities
by using heavy machinery i.e. earthmovers - 2012(2) CPC 377 N.C.
OBM defect - OBM purchased from OP found suffering with fault within two months of installation OP
directed to refund cost of OBM with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 5,000/- - Plea of purchase for commercial purpose is
rejected - 2009(2) CPC 43 N.C.
57

Offset Machine - Commercial purpose - Complaint regarding defect in offset printing machine - Complainant
not a consumer - 1992 CPC 770 N.C.
Machine sold by dealer was different than that ordered by complainant - Dealer, not the manufacturer is liable to
pay damages - 1994(1) CPC 123 N.C.
O.P. supplied off set machine of size different than one for which order was placed - Replacement of machine or
refund of price held to be justified - 2005(2) CPC 329 N.C.
Oil industry - Pricing of raw material to be supplied for complainants oil industry cannot be subjected to the
consumer jurisdiction - 1994(1) CPC 418 N.C.
Oil Mill - Oil machinery found to be defective - Complainant allowed Rs. 8,500 as compensation even without
specific prayer - 1994(2) CPC 505 A.P.
Oil tin damage - Oil tins sent through tempo owned by OP damaged causing spillage of oil - OP directed to
pay a sum of Rs. 17423 with cost - 2003(1) CPC 71 Chd.
Old car - It was made known to insurer that car to be insured was old one - Claim cannot be repudiated
subsequently that car was old one - 1998(1) CPC 164 Chd.
--Complainant was unable to prove that old vehicle was supplied by OP Dismissal of complaint by Fora
below upheld - 2013(1) CPC 590 N.C.
Old model scooty - OP supplied 2006 model of scooty instead of 2007 model OP directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 10,000 with 8% p.a. interest - 2009(3) CPC 562 U.P.
Onus Once it is proved that job card that vehicle is being taken into repair shop, burden shifts to manufacturer
that vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect - 2009(1) CPC 82 Delhi
--Onus to prove manufacturing defect lies upon the purchaser of vehicle 2011(1) CPC 388 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect Onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the product would be on consumer
buyer - 2010(2) CPC 720 N.C.
Order of replacement - After a conclusion that tractor not having manufacturing defect, order of replacement
or refund of entire price cannot be ordered Impugned order quashed Only excess amount to be refunded 2012(3)
CPC 431 N.C.
Ornaments weight OP found guilty in return of ornaments weighing less weight as one Ring was kept back
by the complainant OP liable to pay the cost of litigation only without any other compensation - 2009(3) CPC 638 Chd.
Overcharging OP charged Rs. 4,94,000 from complainant whereas some quality machine was sold for Rs.
4,10,000 to other customer OP directed to refund excess amount for committing unfair trade practice - 2012(1) CPC 519
N.C.
P.C.L. (Computer) - Full price of PCL paid by complainant to dealer was duly forwarded to manufacturer -
Manufacturer alone is liable for delay in delivery of PCL - 2002(2) CPC 356 Chd.
Package for reduction in weight Complainant paid fee of Rs. 33,060 for a package for reduction in
weight to the extent of 20 kg, which could not be gained by the petitioner Order of State Commission allowing a sum of
Rs. 25,000 justified - 2009(1) CPC 133 N.C.
Pager defect - Pager stopped to work after one year - OP directed to refund deposited amount with interest/cost -
2002(2) CPC 136 Chd.
Pager service - Pager failed to respond with a limit of 45 K.M. as advertised - Opposite party directed to pay Rs.
1,500 as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 151 Pb.
Pair of shoes - Defect - Grant of Rs. 500 costs in a case where petty amount of Rs. 325 is involved is excessive -
Bhim Sen v. Vasudev Garg, 2000(1) CPC 529 Pb.
Partnership - Copier machine could not be made functional Institution of complaint by partner of firm cannot
be questioned Person defined in section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C. P. Act includes a firm whether registered or not
Complaint allowed - 2010(2) CPC 85 N.C.
Penal costs - Offset machine purchased from OP proved to be defective Refund of its price (Rs. 2,82,000)
rightly ordered Petition dismissed with penal cost of Rs. 10,000 - 2012(1) CPC 238 N.C.
--Defective ply - Petitioner dragging respondent in litigation instead of paying petty amount Petitioner directed to
pay penal cost of Rs. 10,000/- for dragging respondent in unwanted litigation - 2014(3) CPC 291 N.C.
58

Pest in Syrup - Alleged defective syrup containing pest not consumed by the ailing child - Offer of Rs. 1,000 by
manufacturer held to be sufficient amount of compensation - 1994(2) CPC 703 Pb.
Alleged defective syrup containing pest not consumed by the ailing child - Offer of Rs. 1,000 by manufacturer
held to be sufficient amount of compensation - 1995(1) CPC 258 Pb.
Photo copier - Appellant itself agreed to replace photo-copy machine by new one - Further compensation of Rs.
30,000 granted by District Forum not justified - 1998(2) CPC 231 M.P.
Defect - 6 lacs copies were Xeroxed when defect was alleged after period of warranty - O.P. cannot be held liable
for delivering machine with manufacturing defect - Ram Bhaj Garg v. M/s. Ricoh India Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 171 Chd.
Machine purchased for expanding the business - Purchase for commercial purpose - Complaint not maintainable -
Kores India Ltd. and Two Others v. Shakti Prem Sethi, 1997(2) CPC 274 U.P.
Machine purchased from OP did not work even after repairs - Replacement of machine or payment of Rs. 93,165
with 6% interest upheld - 2007(1) CPC 431 N.C.
Machine remained unfunctional for several days after purchase - Respondent seller directed to pay compensation
of Rs. 13,000 with 18% interest - 1996(2) CPC 389 Chandigarh.
No defect was mentioned in service card regarding photocopier machine which was allegedly suffering from
manufacturing defect - Complaint rightly dismissed - 2002(2) CPC 580 N.C.
--OP failed to carry out repairs of Photostat machine as per terms of agreement State Commission reversed order
of District Forum which directed OP to carry repairs with compensation and cost Order of State Commission set aside -
2011(3) CPC 122 N.C.
Photo copier purchased for self employment - Does not fall under the exclusion clause of Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act
- Complaint held to be maintainable - 1995(1) CPC 220 Raj.
--Photo copy machine purchased by complainant found to be defective - Opposite Party directed to refund price of
machine - 2005(1) CPC 546 Chhattisgarh
Photocopier machine purchased, found to be defective - Seller directed to replace the same with interest on
detained amount - 1997(2) CPC 463 Pb.
Photocopier machine was found to be defective - Manufacturer who failed to pursue the case directed to replace
the machine and to pay compensation - 1995(2) CPC 187 Pb.
Photocopier purchased for resale - Purpose being commercial dispute not covered under Consumer Protection Act
- 1998(2) CPC 47 U.P.
Photocopying machine purchased for copying of registered documents which is a public purpose - The plea of
purchase for commercial purpose not tenable - 2000(1) CPC 312 N.C.
Photostat Machine purchased for self employment - Found to be defective - Complainant held entitled to Rs.
11,000 and removal of defect - Plea of commercial purpose rejected - 1999(2) CPC 457 H.P.
Purchase of photostat machine with loan under Rojgar Yojna Self employment proved - Plea of commercial
purpose disallowed - 1998(1) CPC 480 M.P.
Photo processing - Photo film entrusted to colour lab for developing, were spoiled by negligence -
Complainant held entitled to Rs. 5000 as compensation - 2000(1) CPC 155 A.P.
Photo Snap - Distortion in facial impression of child during taking snap - No relief for defect in photograph -
1993 CPC 679 H.P.
Pipes defect - 55 RCC pipes loaded in truck were found in broken condition which were returned to respondent
dealer Respondent directed to refund price of pipes with 9% p.a. interest and costs of Rs. 5,000 - 2009(2) CPC 478 Pb.
Pleading - Complainant took a wrong plea that tractor was not delivered despite payment Actually, it
was repossessed by OP due to non payment of balance price Grant of relief declined - 2009(2) CPC 298 H.P.
--Complainant did not plead any manufacturing defect in his complaint Order of replacement of vehicle set aside -
2010(3) CPC 162 Hr.
Plywood defect - Allegation of supplying plywood by dealer of shorter width and size not proved from
evidence - O.P. not liable - Kewal Krishan Garg v. Sunshine Glass and Plywood House, 2005(1) CPC 349 Chd.
Pollution - Defective vehicle with music causing pollution - Transport Authorities directed to remove grievances
of complainant - 1991 CPC 517 Orissa
Pollution testing machine Defect occurred in Machine after its installation Directions issued to rectify
the mistake upheld in revision - 2010(2) CPC 342 N.C.
59

Power press - Delay in delivery of power press purchased for commercial purpose - Complainant not a
consumer under the Act - Subhash Chander v. Satwant Singh Negi, 1995(2) CPC 135 Hr.
Power tiller - Complainant failed to prove by evidence any defect in power tiller purchased by him - Not entitled
to compensation - 2001(1) CPC 376 Orissa
Power tiller purchased was giving trouble during warranty period - Replacement of tiller justified - 1999(2) CPC
518 N.C.
--Power tiller purchased from OP failed to cut crops despite its repairs OP directed to pay Rs. one lac in lump sum
Award of interest set aside - 2009(1) CPC 115 N.C.
Pressure Cooker - Delay of one year in informing about bursting of pressure cooker - Manufacturer held not
liable - 2000(1) CPC 1 S.C.
--Lid of pressure cooker blew up hitting the ceiling after repair - Relief cannot be declined on frivolous grounds -
1999(1) CPC 699 Delhi
Pressure Cooker burst within warranty period - Wife disabled due to injury - Held entitled to relief of Rs. 1,38,000
- 1996(2) CPC 591 N.C.
Sever blast by Prestige Presser cooker occurred 14 years after its purchase - Cooker cannot be said to be defective
- 1996(2) CPC 651 N.C.
The pressure cooker purchased by complainant was working in normal way from the last 14 years - Defect in the
item not proved - Relief denied - 1994(1) CPC 220 Pb.
Price List - Dealers are duty bound to mention in the price list that goods will not be sold lower than those shown
in the price list so that consumers may not be misled - 1993 CPC 264 S.C.
Price on Package - Complaint against non printing the price of photographic film by respondent - Directions
issued to display the price on the package and through newspapers - 1991 CPC 448 Delhi
No price printed on the Kodak Film package - Manufacture/distributor held liable for deficient service - 2000(1)
CPC 9 S.C.
Price over charged Complainant purchased four bottles of cold drinks more than MRP Numerous
consumers Complaint distinguished as class action Compensation awarded by Fora below upheld 2011(1) CPC 350
N.C.
Price Scheme - Manufacturer gave price to the financier of photocopier having invoice in his name -
Complainant purchaser not being a consumer cannot claim the price - 2005(1) CPC 362 N.C.
Pricing - Question of adequacy of consideration or pricing cannot be adjudicated upon under the Act - 1994(2)
CPC 93 N.C.
Principal and Agent - Non-installation of machinery resulting in loss to complainant - Manufacturer is bound
to do the needful when dealer is acting as his agent - 2008(2) CPC 95 N.C.
Principal/Agent - Act done by a dealer as agent would bind a manufacturer for any deficiency in service -
2003(1) CPC 387 T.N.
--Petition between appellant No. 1 and 2 were on the basis of Principal to Principal basis and not on
Principal and agent basis No manufacturing defect proved in car Relief granted by State Commission set
aside - 2013(3) CPC 124 N.C.
Dealer acts as an agent of the manufacturers of goods - Principal is liable for negligent act of his agent - Sipani
Automobiles Ltd. (M/s.) v. Kewal Krishan Duggal, 1998(2) CPC 130 Hr.
--Once vehicle is delivered to dealer by manufacturer by receiving entire price, relationship of principal and agent
came to an end Dealing remains on principal to principal basis 2012(3) CPC 431 N.C.
--Old car sold alleging it as a new model by respondent No. 2 on principal to principal basis Respondent No. 2 not
acting as an agent of respondent No.1 (manufacturer) Respondent No. 2 (Dealer) alone is guilty of unfair trade practice -
2011(3) CPC 547 N.C.
Principals liability - Dealer committed deficiency in service in delivery of booked car - Manufacturer cannot
escape its liability as a principal for his agents conduct - 1998(2) CPC 130 Hr.
Printed clause - A printed clause to oust jurisdiction of Court, unless consented by opposite party cannot oust
the jurisdiction of Court where cause of action has accrued - 1997(1) CPC 329 Pb.
Printed condition - Condition printed on a receipt not signed by investor have no binding force - 2007(1) CPC
253 N.C.
60

Printed price - Cineplex charging Rs. 40 of water bottle against its printed price Rs. 12 - Held liable to pay
penal charges of Rs. 60,000 - Satyam Cineplexes v. Mark Paul, 2007(1) CPC 642 Delhi
Printers fault - Respondent failed to complete printing of book in time - Directed to complete the book in 4
months or pay double amount - 1997(2) CPC 566 Chd.
Printers negligence - Printing of map delayed for 2 years after payment - Dismissal of complaint on vague
reasoning quashed - 1999(1) CPC 145 N.C.
Printing Machine Defect Offset machine purchased from OP proved to be defective Refund of its price
(Rs. 2,82,000) rightly ordered Petition dismissed with penal cost of Rs. 10,000 - 2012(1) CPC 238 N.C.
Printing press - Replacement of defective printing press after three years not permissible where warranty had
expired - Stereocraft v. Monotype India Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 3 S.C.
Privity of contract There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner
manufacturer Order of Fora below holding petitioner liable for manufacturing defect in tractor set aside 2011(1) CPC
590 N.C.
Probative value - Relief granted for defect in ceiling fan on the basis of receipt on reverse on visiting card
having probative value, is valid - Hercules Engineering Industries v. V. Gangireddy, 2000(1) CPC 151 A.P.
Procedure - District Forum should seek experts opinion to determine the manufacturing defect in tyres
purchased - 1997(1) CPC 668 N.C.
Removal of defect without going into the version of opposite party should not be ordered - 1996(2) CPC 263 N.C.
Proof/evidence - Allegation of complainant that OP did not supply 3 items with tractor despite payment not
proved from evidence No relief can be granted to complainant - 2011(3) CPC 364 N.C.
Proper solution - Once manufacturing defect is directed, replacement of vehicle is not proper solution price of
vehicle must be refunded - 2009(1) CPC 82 Delhi
Prosecution - Order passed to repair or replace defective printer - Repair carried out - Respondent cannot be
prosecuted for non compliance of order - 2002(2) CPC 660 N.C.
Prospective Consumer - Dealer allowed delivery of car out of turn impressed by complainants status -
Demand of car price at enhanced rate - Complaint by prospective customer held not maintainable - 1999(2) CPC 166 Pb.
Publication - Defect in printed book - Complaint can be filed against publisher under the Consumer Protection
Act - 1995(1) CPC 122 Ker.
Mistakes in Encyclopaedia - Compensation claimed - As matter does not come under Consumer Protection Act -
Relief was declined - 1996(1) CPC 660 N.C.
Respondent failed to complete printing of book in time - Directed to complete the book in 4 months or pay double
amount - 1997(2) CPC 566 Chd.
Pumping set - Case of complainant was that pump in question could not be rectified by way of repair - Order of
District Forum directing expert to find out manufacturing defects is beyond jurisdiction - 1998(2) CPC 197 Kerala
Opposite party failed to drill upto agreed level on account which motor pump had failed - Opposite party directed
to pay compensation to complainant - 2005(1) CPC 143 Chhattisgarh
O.P. dealer supplied defective electric motor and PVC agricultural pipes causing loss to tubewell bore - O.P.
directed to pay Rs. 29,345 with 10% interest for crop loss - 2005(2) CPC 367 Hr.
Rate of interest - OP directed to pay Rs. 55,000 for supplying defective plant and machinery - Order upheld -
However interest reduced 18% to 15% - 2003(2) CPC 82 N.C.
--OP failed to give delivery of motor cycle due to termination of their agency Complainant held entitled to
payment of interest at the market rate i.e. 12% instead of 6% - 2013(2) CPC 153 N.C.
Tractor not delivered despite full payment by complainant - Both manufacturer and dealer directed to refund
amount with interest - Interest reduced from 20% to 12% - 2007(1) CPC 460 N.C.
Dealer failed to deliver car within stipulated period - Directed to refund deposited amount with 18% interest -
2002(1) CPC 215 N.C.
RCC pipes 55 RCC pipes loaded in truck were found in broken condition which were returned to respondent
dealer Respondent directed to refund price of pipes with 9% p.a. interest and costs of Rs. 5,000 - 2009(2) CPC 478 Pb.
Rectification of error - Defect occurred in Machine after its installation Directions issued to rectify the
mistake upheld in revision - 2010(2) CPC 342 N.C.
61

Recycling plant - Complainant failed to prove defect in Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) purchased for Fiber
Factory - Proper jobs not done by complainant - OP directed to make ETP workable after completion of jobs - Nuchem
Ltd. (M/s.) v. M/s Praneet Enviroquips Pvt. Ltd., 2001(2) CPC 590 Chd.
Refrigerator - Compressor of refrigerator found to be defective - Dealer directed to replace the same with costs
- 1999(2) CPC 145 Pb.
Defect should be got checked from an expert or item should be tested in laboratory - Inspection by official of
Distt. Forum deprecated - Rajindra Electronics (M/s.) v. Radhey Sham Gupta, 1997(2) CPC 191 Pb.
Fridge purchase found suffering from minor defect - Compensation of Rs. 1500 is recoverable - Replacement
declined as there was no manufacturing defect - 2004(1) CPC 72 Chd.
Manufacturer cannot be allowed to leave consumers in the lurch by taking shelters of technicalities -
Dealer/manufacturer held liable for delivering defective refrigerator - 1997(2) CPC 120 Pb.
Over charge of Rs. 250 as service charges not proved - Relief declined to complainant - 2002(1) CPC 303 Chd.
Refrigerator did not work despite replacement of compressor twice - Dealer directed to refund full price with 18%
P.A. interest - 1999(2) CPC 659 Chd.
Refrigerator purchased did not function satisfactorily despite repeated repairs - Refund of full price of refrigerator
ordered - 1998(2) CPC 252 Hr.
Refrigerator purchased started giving trouble within warranty period - Dealer directed to replace compressor with
compensation of Rs. 5,000 - 1997(1) CPC 488 Pb.
--The order directing replacement of compressor of refrigerator became final - Revival of complaint for replacement
of refrigerator is without jurisdiction - 1998(2) CPC 223 M.P.
Refrigerator was replaced on allegation of complainant - Again replacement cannot be ordered on his bald
statement - 2003(1) CPC 235 Chd.
Refrigerator purchased found to be defective - Manufacturer and not dealer is liable for deficient service -
Replacement ordered - 2004(2) CPC 383 Guj.
Refrigerators defect - Compensation of Rs. 5,000 awarded by Forum after considering proper evidence
about defective refrigerator - Impugned order held to be justified - 2005(2) CPC 493 Chd.
--Fora below allowed the complaint directing refund of entire price of refrigerator with interest without any order in
regard to return of refrigerator Order is unjustified and modified to the extent that petitioner shall replace the door of
refrigerator with necessary repairs to make it functional - 2012(2) CPC 180 N.C.
Defect in refrigerator was established as per report of mechanic - Simple saying that mechanic was not qualified
engineer is no defence in favour of O.P - 2005(2) CPC 457 Hr.
Leakage continued from refrigerator even after repairs - O.P. directed to refund the price with 18% interest -
2004(2) CPC 478 T.N.
Refrigerators defect could not be removed even after replacement of its Motor - Dealer directed to pay for Relay
System with compensation of Rs. 5,000 - 1999(2) CPC 157 Pb.
Refund - Dealer delayed delivery of car with a view to charge enhanced price - Directed to refund enhanced price
with 18% interest - 1999(2) CPC 134 H.P.
--Complainant purchased tractor from OP which suffered from manufacturing defect Even registration
documents were not supplied OP was directed to refund Rs. 85,000 - Order upheld - 2013(3) CPC 134 N.C.
Dealer deposited the Central Excise with the Department - Tax not payable on taxi - Department is liable to refund
the tax to purchaser - 1998(2) CPC 263 Chd.
--OP failed to give delivery of motor cycle due to termination of their agency Complainant held entitled to
payment of interest at the market rate i.e. 12% instead of 6% - 2013(2) CPC 153 N.C.
Dealer failed to replace T.V. set as directed - Directed to pay full price after T.V. set is returned by complainant -
1999(2) CPC 626 U.P.
--If defect of goods cannot be removed, then best solution is to refund the price with compensation - 2009(1) CPC
389 Delhi
Refund of booking - Dealer acted as a window to receive policy amount of vehicle on behalf of manufacturer
Only manufacturer can be held liable through civil proceedings 2012(3) CPC 552 N.C.
--OPs failed to deliver car despite payment of total price Reason for non delivery was termination of
dealership OPs directed to refund deposited amount with 9% interest Order upheld - 2013(3) CPC 12 N.C.
62

Refund of car price - Fiat Car started giving trouble soon after its purchase Trouble continued even after
replacement of engine OP dealer directed to refund Rs. 6,69,187 price of car with life time tax and installments paid
with 12% interest to complainant 2011(1) CPC 39 S.C.
--OP could not remove defects of vehicle though repairs were carried 11 times OP rightly directed to refund Rs. 3
lacs with compensation and cost by State Commission Order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 562 N.C.
Refund of unauthorized amount - Authorised dealer charged upon repair charges of vehicle during
warranty period unauthorizedly OP directed to refund unauthorized repair charges with compensation/ cost of Rs.
11,000 - 2010(2) CPC 501 N.C.
Refund of booking amount - Vehicle booked with respondent No. 3 whose business was purchased by
petitioner/company - Petitioner company not liable to refund the booking amount but respondent No. 3 alone is liable to
refund the amount - 2008(2) CPC 628 N.C.
Refund of car price - Booking price of Rs. 21,000 refunded to complainant - Dealer liable to pay 18% interest
on deposits - 1999(1) CPC 28 Chd.
Complainant deposit Rs. 1,82,000 as car booking amount - Dealer and manufacturer directed to refund price with
18% interest for non delivery of car - 2003(2) CPC 400 Jhar.
Dealer charged excess amount of Rs. 8691 of car - Directed to refund excess amount with 18% p.a. interest -
2000(1) CPC 124 Chd.
Luxurious car purchased by spending huge amount - Found suffering from manufacturing defect - O.P. directed to
replace the car with new one or to refund its price - 2007(2) CPC 665 N.C.
Replacement of car or refund of price claimed after seven months of purchase due to defect of air conditioner etc.
- Demand not justified - 2002(2) CPC 448 N.C.
Refund of computer price - Appellant failed to controvert allegation of complainant that computer sold by
O.P. was defective - Replacement of computer or refund of price with interest justified - 2005(2) CPC 376 Hr.
Refund of cost of machine - Defect found in machine purchased for commercial purpose within warranty
period OP directed to pay entire cost of Rs. 4 lacs as cost of machine - 2009(1) CPC 461 N.C.
Refund of Excise Duty - It is the manufacturer who should be proceeded against for refund of excise duty on
car and not the department - 2002(2) CPC 451 N.C.
--Excise duty levied according to rate prevailing on the date of coming vehicle out of manufacturing unit Question
of refund of excise duty does not arise as change therein operates with prospective effect - 2009(2) CPC 246 N.C.
Matter relating to refund of Excise duties pending before Excise Deptt. - Jurisdiction of Distt. Forum is ousted -
2006(1) CPC 343 Maha.
Matter relating to refund of excise duty between dealer and purchaser of vehicle under taxi quota - Manufacturer
not necessary party - Refund of amount justified - 2007(1) CPC 501 N.C.
Purchase of car out of Taxi quota - Purchaser entitled to refund of Rs. 21,000 paid as excise duty - Dealer and
manufacturer directed to refund the said amount - 2004(1) CPC 137 Uttran.
Refund of machine price - OP supplied lab machine with defective equipment Post installation
services not provided adequately OP directed to refund price of machine i.e. Rs. 17,50,000/- to the
complainant - 2013(1) CPC 167 N.C.
Refund of Price - Air conditioners defect could not be removed by repeated repairs - Refund of price is the
only solution - 1999(2) CPC 396 Maha.
Cylinder block of truck purchased found to be defective - Replacement of parts with interest and compensation
allowed - 1998(2) CPC 110 Bihar
Dealer sold duplicate fridge in name of Kalvinator brand which was found to be defective - Directed to refund the
price with 12% interest - 2001(1) CPC 306 U.P.
Forum directed manufacturer and dealer liable to refund booking amount with interest - Refund can be had only
from manufacturer - 2000(2) CPC 603 Pb.
--Four computers purchased for Rs. 2,03,400 - Computers not supplied even after receipt of cheque OP directed to
supply computers or refund total amount with 12% p.a. interest - 2009(2) CPC 548 Pb.
Frequent failure and break down in machinery affected payment of installment payable by the complainant - OP
held liable to refund purchase price with interest including penal interest - 2008(1) CPC 370 N.C.
--Generator set purchased from OP stopped functioning within one month of purchase Fora below rightly directing
OP to refund the price with 9% interest and cost Order upheld - 2012(2) CPC 182 N.C.
63

LML Vespa Scooter could not be repaired despite repeated repairs - The dealers and manufacturers to refund its
price Rs. 26,114 with 12% interest - 2004(1) CPC 346 Orissa
--Manufacturer and Dealer failed to remove mechanical defect of car - Directed to refund car price with 18%
interest - 1995(1) CPC 317 N.C.
Mattresses purchased proved to be defective even after change of pieces - Dealer directed to refund Rs. 3,200 out
of total price of Rs. 3,625 - 1999(1) CPC 618 Chd.
OP completed only 38% of total compensation as agreed between parties for Rs. 16 lacs - OP directed to return
sum of Rs. 5,77,000 with 12% p.a. interest for non completion of construction - 2008(1) CPC 5 Hr.
OP failed to install machinery purchased by complainant - Directed to refund price of machinery with 12%
interest - 2003(2) CPC 347 N.C.
Photo copy machine purchased by complainant found to be defective - Opposite Party directed to refund price of
machine - 2005(1) CPC 546 Chhattisgarh
--Purchase of tractor alongwith trailer and agricultural implements But only tractor was supplied OP directed to
refund price of trailer and agricultural implements with cost - 2009(1) CPC 732 N.C.
Refrigerator purchased did not function satisfactorily despite repeated repairs - Refund of full price of refrigerator
ordered - Kaysons (India) (M/s.) v. Shri Ram Kumar, 1998(2) CPC 252 Hr.
Surgical instrument purchased by complainant not supplied - Dealer directed to refund amount on return of
instrument by complainant - 1998(2) CPC 426 W. Bengal
Swelab machine purchased by hospital found to be non-functional during warranty period - OP directed to refund
price of machine with 10% interest - 2007(2) CPC 487 N.C.
T.V. Set purchased was found to be defective - Dealer directed to refund its price with 12% interest - Pinky
Radios v. Raj Rani, 1999(1) CPC 638 Chd.
Tractor and trailer purchased found to be defective - Dealer directed to refund the price with 15% interest -
2001(2) CPC 564 N.C.
Tractors defect in manufacturing well proved from experts statement - Refund of price with interest justified -
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Kamal Singh Verma, 2008(1) CPC 328 Chhattisgarh
--Vehicle suffered from various defects occurring again and again Moderate compensation of Rs. 25,000/- will be
sufficient payable by the respondent Refund of price of vehicle not justified - 2013(2) CPC 207 N.C.
--Vehicle with warranty found to be defective just after its purchase OP directed to refund its price Other
compensation and interest quashed - 2009(1) CPC 310 N.C.
Walkman purchased from OP had shown defect during warranty period - Replacement of walkman or refund of its
price is justified - Radio House (M/s.) v. Sandeep Ghosh, 2008(1) CPC 703 Kar.
--Washing machine purchased from opposite party found to be defective from the very beginning - Opposite party
directed to refund price with 12% p.a. interest - 2000(2) CPC 310 Chd.
Refund of tractor price - Where defects of tractor can be removed by replacement of hydraulic pump
assembly, replacement of tractor or refund of its price is not proper - 2001(1) CPC 513 M.P.
--Tractor purchased from OP was suffering from snag of manufacturing defect Refund of tractor price
with 9% interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000 justified - 2013(1) CPC 330 H.P.
Refund with cost - Tractors defect could not be removed despite repeated repairs Refund of 90% price with
cost and compensation of Rs. 12,000 justified Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 17 N.C.
Refund with interest - Car booked not delivered within stipulated period - Both dealer and manufacturer held
jointly and severally liable to refund deposits with 18% interest - 2000(2) CPC 389 Chd.
Delay of 7 years in delivery of car - Dealer/manufacturer directed to refund deposits with 10% interest and costs -
2003(1) CPC 257 Chd.
--OP failed to remove defect despite an assurance that needful would be done if complaint was withdrawn
OP directed to refund full price with 7% interest after withdrawal of complaint - 2013(3) CPC 90 N.C.
--OP failed to deliver car with essential features despite payment Directed to refund deposited amount with 12%
p.a. interest 2011(2) CPC 173 N.C.
Total price of car paid - Delivery delayed - No enhanced price can be charged by dealer - Refund with 15%
interest ordered - 1997(1) CPC 596 Hr.
Vehicle suffering from several troubles was delivered to dealer for repair which he went on using it for his own
purpose - Both manufacturer and dealer directed to refund its price with 12% interest - 2006(1) CPC 646 N.C.
64

Registration - Mistake in number of Chassis and Engine of scooter committed by dealer - Registration
Authority not to liable for deficiency in service - 1998(1) CPC 332 Delhi
Relief - Complainant failed to prove by evidence of technical expert that loss was caused by gas cylinder leakage -
Relief declined - 2001(1) CPC 257 Pb.
--OP refused to supply machinery despite receipt of payment as complainant had presented fabricated and false
quotations Relief granted by District Forum rightly set aside by State Commission Impugned order upheld - 2014(2)
CPC 272 N.C.
--Complainant claimed refund of deposited amount paid for registration of car as colour of car was different He
signed the registration papers of his own free Will Refund of whole amount cannot be ordered Further relief declined -
2014(3) CPC 37 N.C.
Complainant failed to prove excess price charged by Opposite Party - No evidence proved alleged manufacturing
defect - Relief declined - Gupta Bhalla and Associates v. Khanna Enterprises, Ghumar Mandi, 2004(2) CPC 103 Pb.
Concurrent finding against charging of excess price of computer - Relief rightly declined - Revision dismissed -
2003(2) CPC 55 N.C.
--Averments regarding manufacturing defect of car not supported by the evidence on record OP tried its best to
remove minor defect of noise etc No relief can be allowed to complainant - 2012(2) CPC 383 N.C.
Non delivery of booked car within two weeks - It is a sale of goods and not of rendering any service - Relief
declined - M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Mrs. Bhuvana Viswanathan, 1993 CPC 121 N.C.
--No expert evidence in support of alleged defect in vehicle produced on record - Simply that vehicle was taken for
repairs off and on is not sufficient to prove the defect Relief declined - 2009(1) CPC 686 N.C.
Transformer given for repair with repair charges, but not returned back - Complainant partly at fault for not taking
it back - O.P. directed to return Transformer - 2004(1) CPC 354 Chd.
Relief to unemployed youths Dealer of car should take special care of unemployed persons in delivery of
booked vehicle so that they may not be jobless for long period - 2014(3) CPC 178 N.C.
Remand - Order of State Commission awarding compensation of 6 lakh for defect in vehicle not based on solid
evidence - Matter remanded for fresh consideration - 2000(1) CPC 605 N.C.
--State Commission directed OP/dealer to pay compensation on return of vehicle by complainant - Procedure of Sec.
13 (b) of CP Act was not followed - Order set aside - Case remanded - 2008(2) CPC 300 N.C.
Remote loss - Shoes purchased for Rs. 350 found to be defective - Compensation of Rs. 100 instead of demand
of Rs. 5000 is justified - 2003(2) CPC 393 Delhi
Repainted Car - Dealer delivered repainted vehicle to complainant for new car - Directed to supply new car or
refund new cars price with 12% interest - 2000(2) CPC 347 Chd.
Repair charges - Replacement of vehicle on ground of price on account of manufacturing defect after vehicle
had run for 4 years is not justified Only repair expenses can be awarded - 2009(1) CPC 39 N.C.
--Authorised dealer charged upon repair charges of vehicle during warranty period unauthorizedly OP directed to
refund unauthorized repair charges with compensation/ cost of Rs. 11,000 - 2010(2) CPC 501 N.C.
Repair of vehicle - Vehicle purchased from OP found to be defective within warranty period Violation of
terms of policy not proved OP directed to repair the vehicle to make it roadworthy - 2009(2) CPC 322 N.C.
--OP failed to carry necessary repairs of vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect Nor any certificate of fitness
was issued Order of State Commission directing OP to carry the repairs is justified - 2013(2) CPC 539 N.C.
Repeated repairs - Car purchased for huge amount of Rs. 7,67,053 had to be taken to workshop again and
again but defects could not be removed OP directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs with cost of Rs. 10,000 for
delivering defective car - 2012(1) CPC 688 Pb.
Replacement - No manufacturing defect proved in the case - Some parts were defective - Replacement of
scooter declined - Preet Mohinder Singh Gill v. Delhi Automobiles, 2001(2) CPC 300 Chd.
--Petitioner could not prove from evidence that he was ready to replace the compressor and that District Forum
wrongly allowed complaint Petition dismissed as being without merit - 2014(2) CPC 481 N.C.
Defect in vehicle continued even after replacement of engine - OP directed to pay price of vehicle with cost and
compensation or replace the vehicle - 2008(2) CPC 181 N.C.
--Manufacturing defect Job Cards placed on record by OPs to prove that repair of tractor was done to satisfaction
of complainant but prior to sale of tractor OPs admission that defects in tractor were removed, not proved - Provisions
of S. 13 of C.P. Act not applicable - 2012(1) CPC 619 N.C.
65

--Once manufacturing defect is directed, replacement of vehicle is not proper solution price of vehicle must be
refunded - 2009(1) CPC 82 Delhi
--Replacement of vehicle on ground of price on account of manufacturing defect after vehicle had run for 4 years is
not justified Only repair expenses can be awarded - 2009(1) CPC 39 N.C.
Washing machine rotating in one direction - Not washing cloths properly - Defect could not be removed -
Opposite Party directed to replace the Machine - 2004(2) CPC 106 Pb.
Replacement of axle - Rear axle of truck had broken down which was replaced by OP free of cost Vehicle
not suffering from manufacturing defect Compensation of Rs. 61,691/- awarded by Fora below set aside - 2011(3) CPC
110 N.C.
Replacement of car - Replacement of car or refund of price claimed after seven months of purchase due to
defect of air conditioner etc. - Demand not justified - 2002(2) CPC 448 N.C.
--Complainant had to go repeatedly to workshop for repairs of car Replacement of car declined Compensation of
Rs. 40,000 with cost of Rs. 10,000 allowed - 2012(2) CPC 407 N.C.
--Petitioner failed to prove that an old car with painted body was supplied to him by OP Replacement of vehicle
unjustified A lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000 upheld - 2012(2) CPC 371 N.C.
Defect in certain parts of car rectified by OP dealer - Only payment of adequate compensation and not
replacement of car justified - TATA Motors Limited v. Suraj Kohli, 2006(2) CPC 733 Hr.
Luxurious car purchased by spending huge amount - Found suffering from manufacturing defect - O.P. directed
to replace the car with new one or to refund its price - 2007(2) CPC 665 N.C.
Replacement of chairs Chairs purchased from OP proved to be defective Order of Fora below directing
OP to replace the chairs or to pay its price Rs. 6,29,000 with 9% interest, compensation and cost held to be justified -
2012(2) CPC 235 N.C.
Replacement of engine - Order of replacement of vehicle after running more than 40,000 km is not
sustainable as manufacturing defect is not proved 2009(3) CPC 168 N.C.
--Complainant suffered monetary loss and mental agony due to manufacturing defect of car OP directed to replace
engine of car with compensation of Rs. 40,000/- - Replacement of whole car denied 2011(1) CPC 641 U.P.
Replacement of engine kit - OP failed to replace engine kit as per assurance given in this regard Order of
fora below directing replacement of engine kit or its cost upheld - 2009(1) CPC 470 N.C.
Replacement of inverter - Inverters defect could not be removed despite repeated attempts - Complainant
entitled to replacement of inverter with warrantee or refund of price with 18% interest - 2000(2) CPC 683 Kerala
Replacement of machine - Appellant itself agreed to replace photo-copy machine by new one - Further
compensation of Rs. 30,000 granted by District Forum not justified - 1998(2) CPC 231 M.P.
Dealer/OP ready to remove the defect but complainant disagreed - Replacement of machine declined - Suraj
Prakash v. M/s Jogi Refrigerators, 2002(2) CPC 257 Chd.
Replacement of refrigerator - Refrigerator in question was found to be defective - Replacement with
compensation held to be justified - 2005(2) CPC 457 Hr.
Replacement of refrigerators door - Fora below allowed the complaint directing refund of entire price
of refrigerator with interest without any order in regard to return of refrigerator Order is unjustified and modified to the
extent that petitioner shall replace the door of refrigerator with necessary repairs to make it functional - 2012(2) CPC 180
N.C.
Replacement of scooter - Improper handling of scooter found to be cause of scooter defect - Dealer not
liable to replace the scooter - 2002(2) CPC 195 Chd.
Replacement of shoes - Shoes purchased from OP found to be defective as there was cracking in one of shoes
OP directed to replace the shoes or refund its price with compensation of Rs. 1500 2010(1) CPC 551 Chd.
Replacement of tractor - Complainant could not prove by cogent evidence that replaced tractor was
old one Mere mention of two numbers of the engine by inadvertence does not prove that tractor was old
Relief declined - 2013(1) CPC 37 N.C.
--District Forum directed OP to replace the tractor suffering from mechanical defect But State Commission
directed OP to carry necessary repairs with compensation of Rs. 35,000 - Impugned order upheld - 2014(3) CPC 378 N.C.
Replacement of vehicle Allegation of manufacturing defect not supported by reliable documents Vehicle
duly attended by OP during warranty period Order of replacement set aside Vehicle only to be made roadworthy by
removing the defect 2009(3) CPC 641 N.C.
66

--Automobiles purchased from OP suffering from manufacturing defect as per concurrent finding of fora below
Replacement of vehicles rightly ordered 2011(2) CPC 298 N.C.
--Complete service given to vehicle to the satisfaction of consumer whenever required Manufacturing defect
cannot be proved on mere report of a mechanic who is not an Engineer Order of replacement of vehicle set aside
2009(3) CPC 483 Hr.
--Defect found in three wheeler Engine was replaced but defect still subsisting OP directed to refund price of Rs.
1,89,000 with compensation of Rs. 53,000 or replace the vehicle - 2010(2) CPC 676 H.P.
Defect occurred during warranty period - Replacement of vehicle is not necessary if defect can remove by
replacement of certain parts - Complainant awarded total sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation and cost - 2008(2) CPC 133
N.C.
--Defect of vehicle removed with almost 50% replacement of engine Complaint filed again after vehicle had
covered 32,000 kms. Demand of replacement of vehicle or refund of cost not acceptable - 2009(1) CPC 134 N.C.
--Expert had not produced expertise certificate to prove his capability to give opinion on manufacturing
defect Order of Fora below ordering replacement of vehicle set aside - 2013(3) CPC 76 N.C.
Knocking problem in car started within one month of its purchase which could not be removed despite many
repairs - OP directed to replace the vehicle or refund its price with interest and costs - 2008(2) CPC 596 H.P.
--Multiple defects of scooter purchased could not be removed by repairs - Replacement of vehicle is just and proper -
1997(2) CPC 570 Chd.
Tata safari purchased from OP was found to be defective and of old type - OP directed to replace the vehicle or
refund its price with cost and interest - Hind Motors India Ltd. v. Lakhbir Singh, 2008(3) CPC 22 Pb.
--Truck engine started giving trouble within one month of its purchase Petitioner was rightly ordered to replace the
vehicle or to refund its price with interest compensation and cost Order upheld - 2014(2) CPC 215 N.C.
--When defect of vehicle can be rectified by technician by doing the repairs job, replacement of vehicle or
refund of price is not justified - 2013(1) CPC 233 N.C.
Report of expert - A report of expert issuing a report qua manufacturing defect cannot be relied unless
supported by affidavit - 2007(1) CPC 137 N.C.
Restoration - It is well settled that for any manufacturing defect in a product, it is the manufacturer who is liable
and not the dealer Restoration of revision petition due to non prosecution denied due to unsatisfactory reasons for delay
- 2012(1) CPC 564 N.C.
Rice bran - Laboratory test carried without approval of District Forum - Rice bran cannot be held to be defective
- 2002(1) CPC 462 Pb.
Sale of deficient food - Complainant suffered by using stale rice packet purchased from O.P. at Railway
Station - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation - 2004(1) CPC 350 A.P.
Sale of Goods - Car in dispute purchased for commercial purpose - Case being of purchase of goods -
Complaint under C.P. Act does not lie - 1998(1) CPC 249 Pb.
--As per provisions of Sales of Goods Act a purchaser is bound to pay the price of goods if increased before delivery
of goods 2011(2) CPC 303 S.C.
Transaction between the parties is a simple sale of goods - Matter not covered under Consumer Dispute - 1997(1)
CPC 530 T.N.
When a guarantee is given against any defect in goods it is not a case of sale of goods as it includes element of
service - 1997(2) CPC 501 Pb.
Sale of old car OP sold old car to the complainant alleging that it was a new one Complainant duly proved
his case OP directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs with 9% interest as compensation 2011(1) CPC 511 N.C.
--Car purchased by the complainant was earlier booked in the name of other person which was never delivered and
his name remained in record due to mistake of staff Allegation that old car was sold to the complainant not proved
Relief declined - 2014(3) CPC 86 N.C.
Sale of old tractor On the basis of a bona fide mistake in number of tractor engine in Registration
Certificate and Insurance Fora below held OP liable for selling old tractor to the complainant Order set aside Matter
remanded for re-decision 2011(1) CPC 355 N.C.
Sale of old vehicle Old vehicle sold to respondent without disclosing actual date of manufacturing
Petitioner/OP rightly directed to replace the vehicle with a new one Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 199 N.C.
Sample - Sample of defective cement taken by police cannot be made basis of laboratory test in consumer
proceedings - Kharaiti Lal Singla v. M/s. Mahajan Steel Sales Kurukshetra, 1996(2) CPC 143 Hr.
67

Saree - Poor quality - A Silk saree purchased by complainant found to be of poor quality - Respondent held liable
to pay Rs. 500 as damages to complainant - 1993 CPC 309 Delhi
Saree Discolouring - Complainants saree got discoloured during dry cleaning process - Dry cleaner directed
to pay Rs. 6050 with interest - Amar Dry Cleaner (M/s.) v. Mrs. Kamal Gupta, 2000(2) CPC 405 Chd.
Saree Price - Appellant charging price of saree more than printed price - Deficiency in service proved - 1993
CPC 242 T.N.
Sarees Damage - Two sarees and one blouse damaged during dry cleaning process -Dry cleaner directed to
pay Rs. 1,400 with 250 as costs to complainant - 1998(2) CPC 591 Chd.
Complaint filed after nine months of cause of action - Damage to saree not established - Dry cleaner not liable for
deficiency in service - 2004(2) CPC 323 U.P.
Sarees colour faded during dry cleaning process - Dry cleaner directed to pay Rs. 800 with costs as compensation
- 2000(1) CPC 128 Chd.
Sarees defect - A saree was damaged but was still in wearable condition - Opposite party held liable to pay Rs.
500 and not the sarees price - 1994(2) CPC 228 Maha.
Colour of saree faded after its washing - Not returned after given for dry cleaning - O.P. liable for deficient
service - Yuvathi v. Annamma Thomas, 2005(2) CPC 50 T.N.
Saree purchased from dealer was discolored and proved to be defective - Dealer directed to replace Saree or
refund the price with cost - Khurana Silk & Sarees (M/s.) v. Rajinder Kumar, 2001(2) CPC 237 Pb.
Dry Cleaners negligence proved in the case of damaging the complainants saree - Compensation of Rs. 500 per
saree allowed - 1995(1) CPC 70 Goa
--Sarees purchased by complainant found to be defective - Dealer directed to pay price of sarees with 12% interest -
1999(1) CPC 309 Delhi
Sarees Dry Cleaning - Colour of Saree faded after dry cleaning - OP directed to pay Rs. 1000 with costs of
250 - 2003(2) CPC 428 Chd.
Colour of complainants saree faded due to faulty dry cleaning - Dry cleaner directed to pay 75% cost of saree
with costs of Rs. 150 - 1997(2) CPC 429 Chd.
Satellite communication network Compensation claimed against OP for damaging reflection dish
during erection operation by crane and its boom OP took all necessary precautions in good faith, without any willful and
deliberate neglect on its part Deficiency in service not proved - 2011(3) CPC 624 N.C.
Scooter - Mistake in number of chassis and engine of scooter committed by dealer - Registration Authority not to
liable for deficiency in service - 1998(1) CPC 332 Delhi
Serious defect found in scooter - Seller was directed to replace shaft assembly and tyres and to pay Rs. 7,500 -
1995(2) CPC 299 Delhi
Undue delay in delivery of scooter - Deficiency in service proved - 1993 CPC 533 Hr.
Scooter Booking - Dealer detaining price of scooter without supplying the scooter - Directed to refund the
amount with 18% interest - Plea of No profit no loss not to prevail - 1997(2) CPC 291 U.P.
--Delay in refund of scooter booking deposit - Deficiency in service proved - Interest of 18% on deposit justified -
Maharashtra Scooter Ltd., Bombay v. Smt. Reena Lohia, 1993 CPC 119 Hr.
Scooter defect - Allegation of giving consumption of petrol by scooter not supported by documentary evidence
- Complainant not entitled to any relief as no manufacturing defect was proved - 2006(2) CPC 570 Hr.
Defect in scooter was pointed out 2 years after purchase of scooter - OP not liable for deficiency in service -
Defect cannot be proved after such a long period - 2003(2) CPC 574 N.C.
Defect was removable by change of Chassis - Replacement of scooter is not required - Dr. Hema Vasantial
Dakoria v. Bajaj Auto Limited, 2005(1) CPC 492 N.C.
Directions for testing of scooters defect by expert ignored by complainant - Manufacturing defect in scooter not
proved - 2003(2) CPC 202 Chd.
District Forum directed OP dealer to remove the defect of scooter and to pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation - Order
being based upon cogent evidence cannot be set aside - 2003(1) CPC 676 Chd.
Engines mounting bush of scooter purchased finished just after purchase - Dealer directed to replace the vehicle or
pay its price with compensation - 1998(1) CPC 627 Hr.
Entire engine assembly of scooter changed by dealer - Complainant awarded Rs. 10,000 for suffering mental
agony - 2002(1) CPC 298 Chd.
68

Failure of self starting system of scooter - It cannot be termed as manufacturing defect - 2002(1) CPC 294 Chd.
Improper handling of scooter found to be cause of scooter defect - Dealer not liable to replace the scooter -
2002(2) CPC 195 Chd.
LML Vespa Scooter could not be repaired despite repeated repairs - The dealers and manufacturers to refund its
price Rs. 26,114 with 12% interest - Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. L.M.L. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 346 Orissa
L.M.L. Scooter, purchased by complainant found to be defective - Complainant awarded Rs. 21,650 with 12%
interest - 1998(1) CPC 379 Hr.
Multiple defects of scooter purchased could not be removed by repairs - Replacement of vehicle is just and proper
- 1997(2) CPC 570 Chd.
No manufacturing defect proved in the case - Some parts were defective - Relief of Rs. 1500 allowed - Preet
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Delhi Automobiles, 2001(2) CPC 300 Chd.
Not only the dealer but also manufacturer should be held liable for loss caused due to defective scooter sold to the
consumer - 1999(2) CPC 218 Pb.
Respondent removed defects three or four times replacing some parts free of charge - Complaint filed after expiry
of warranty period - Relief declined - Ajay Verma v. Dhiraj Malik, 2006(1) CPC 121 Chd.
--Scooter purchased could not function properly despite repeated repairs - complainant held entitled to
compensation of Rs. 4,000 - Anbros Motors (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. Om Parkash Seth, 2001(2) CPC 457 Chd.
The scooter purchased started giving trouble immediately after purchase - Dealer and manufacturer directed to
repay price with 18% interest - 1999(1) CPC 559 Delhi
Trouble started in scooter - Manufacturing defect in absence of Expert opinion not proved - Compensation of Rs.
3,500 justified - 2005(1) CPC 238 Raj.
Use of scooter for 8 months - Repair services validly done - Not to be replaced - Only mechanical defect ordered
to be removed - Harish Kumar Gupta, Advocate v. M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., 1993 CPC 520 Hr.
Wobbling in both the wheels - Nut and rear axle had worn out within 7 months - Serious defect in scooter proved -
1995(2) CPC 299 Delhi
Scooter Delivery - Delay of 5 years in delivery of scooter - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 3,000 with refund of
deposit with 10% interest - 1995(2) CPC 467 J&K
Scooter Repair - Complainant failed to prove that he spent Rs. 4,854 on scooter repairs carried out by another
mechanic - Dealer cannot be burdened with any liability - 1998(2) CPC 675 Hr.
No explanation regarding satisfactory repair of scooter as ordered by interim order - Interim order upheld in
revision - 2002(1) CPC 630 N.C.
O.P. sold a CDI coil for scooter of complainant who had got it replaced from a road side mechanic - Dealer not
liable for deficiency in service - Indian Auto Spares (M/s.) v. Shri Trilok Singh, 2002(2) CPC 655 Chd.
Scooter sale - Complainants scooter sold by Opposite Party for recovery of balance amount - Opposite Party
liable for deficiency in service as he could retain vehicle as a bailer - 2004(2) CPC 223 N.C.
Scooters Efficiency - Fuel efficiency was not found according to the claim made by the respondent-Company
- Company directed to safeguard interest of complainants - 1992 CPC 570 N.C.
Scooty defect - Replacement of gear box and carburettor but defect not still removed - Order of District Forum
awarding compensation/cost of Rs. 8,000 upheld - 2004(2) CPC 392 Chd.
Scooty purchaser OP supplied 2006 model of scooty instead of 2007 model OP directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 10,000 with 8% p.a. interest - 2009(3) CPC 562 U.P.
Second hand car Car purchased by the complainant was earlier booked in the name of other person which
was never delivered and his name remained in record due to mistake of staff Allegation that old car was sold to the
complainant not proved Relief declined - 2014(3) CPC 86 N.C.
Second Vendor - Second purchaser of a defective car, being a beneficiary is competent to file a complaint, as a
consumer - 1998(1) CPC 655 Pb.
Self Employment - Autorickshaw purchased for earning livelihood was found to be defective - Complaint
against seller is maintainable - 1995(2) CPC 309 Ker.
Complaint against defective machine purchased for self-employment - Complainant is a Consumer - 2004(2)
CPC 233 N.C.
Complainant purchased a tipper truck for his self employment - Purpose is not commercial - 1997(1) CPC 154
N.C.
69

Computer machine alleged to be defective was purchased for commercial purpose and not for self employment -
Purchaser not a consumer under the Act - 1996(2) CPC 27 Chd.
Photostat Machine purchased for self employment - Found to be defective - Complainant held entitled to Rs.
11,000 and removal of defect - Plea of commercial purpose rejected - 1999(2) CPC 457 H.P.
Purchase of a weigh bridge comes in the fold of a commercial purpose and not of earning livelihood by self
employment - 1995(2) CPC 561 Kar.
Purchase of photostat machine with loan under Rojgar Yojna Self employment proved - Plea of commercial
purpose disallowed - 1998(1) CPC 480 M.P.
Truck purchased under a Self Employment Scheme for earning livelihood - Purchase not for commercial purpose
- Complaint maintainable - 1998(2) CPC 110 Bihar
Service - Defect of goods purchased for commercial purpose not removed within warranty period - Deficiency in
service stands proved - 1997(2) CPC 501 Pb.
Delay in supply of hair tonic by dealer is transaction of sale and purchase and not covered under the hiring of
service - 1997(1) CPC 440 N.C.
Shoes defect - Difference in design of two shoes purchased from dealer who refused to change pair of shoes -
Directed to refund price of shoes with 18% interest and cost Rs. 500 - 2000(1) CPC 489 Chd.
--Shoes purchased from OP found to be defective as there was cracking in one of shoes OP directed to replace the
shoes or refund its price with compensation of Rs. 1500 2010(1) CPC 551 Chd.
Shoes replacement - Shoes sold to complainant - Bottom of shoes purchased by complainant came out after
one months use - Refund of price with costs ordered - 1991 CPC 426 Delhi
Slimmer Machine - A Slimmer Machine failed to reduce weight as assured and created side effect - Dealer
directed to refund its price with 18% interest 1999(2) CPC 214 Chd.
--Soon after purchase sofa set had dislocated with fading of colour Bill issued on letter pad OP rightly directed to
pay Rs. 6,000/- with cost of Rs. 1,000/- - Order upheld 2009(3) CPC 717 Hr.
Solar water heating system OP failed to install water heating system despite receipt of Rs. 60,000
out of total Rs. 1,05,000 - OP directed to install the system within one month after receiving the balance amount
- 2013(3) CPC 617 H.P.
Stabilizer defect - Stabilizer purchased was found to be defective - Direction for refund of its price with 18%
interest and Rs. 2,000 as compensation justified - 2002(2) CPC 417 N.C.
--Stabilizers started trouble during warranty period Evidence not produced about carrying out repairs Not
attending genuine complaints amounts to serious deficiency in service Directed to replace or refund the price with
interest and cost 2011(1) CPC 147 N.C.
Street light fittings - Street light fitting purchased from respondent were found to be defective - Complainant
awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation - 1994(2) CPC 644 T.N.
Submersible pump - Complainants crops suffered as the submersible pump could not lift the water -
Complainant entitled to relief of Rs. 14,500 - 1994(2) CPC 647 A.P.
Replacement of submersible pump is not an admission of deficient in service - 2004(1) CPC 628 T.N.
Submersible pump broken down due to defective rope wire but goods were purchased in the name of Corporation
- Complainant is not a consumer - Relief declined - 2008(1) CPC 483 N.C.
Submersible pipes Pipe of submersible pump installed by OP broken after one year Complaint being
consumer is entitled to be compensated - Matter remitted for fresh decision - 2009(2) CPC 557 Kar.
Substandard cement - Cost of reconstruction of floor disintegrated by defective cement not be included in
total of compensation - Sidhartha Agencies, Cement Stockists v. Lt. Col. H.N. Singh, 1996(1) CPC 374 Chandigarh.
--Sub-standard quality cement supplied Strength of cement reduced by at least 40% as per guidelines
Manufacturer, trader and dealer jointly and severely held liable for compensation of Rs. 1 lacs with 9% interest - 2009(2)
CPC 214 N.C.
Suits defect - Material purchased for suit found to be defective - Dealer directed to pay cost of material with
stitching charges and Rs. 500 as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 550 Chd.
Supplied used car Manufacturing defect Car was taken to garage on 12 occasions Vehicle shall be
repaired at the cost of OPs and to extend the warranty for a period of six months, after repair with compensation of Rs.
50,000 2011(1) CPC 167 N.C.
70

Supply of old tractor - Allegation that old tractor was supplied instead of new one not proved by evidence -
Complaint deserves dismissal - Yamuna Syndicate Ltd v. Swarn Kaur, 2006(1) CPC 358 N.C.
Supply of vehicle - Complainant failed to prove that dealer supplied vehicle with less seats than promised -
Differential amount not payable by dealer to complainant - 2007(1) CPC 419 N.C.
Supply of wrong chassis - OP supplied truck chassis instead of bus chassis as ordered - OP directed to
refund the amount with 10% interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000 - 2008(2) CPC 33 N.C.
Surf packet - Packet of Surf found to be 965 grams against 1 Kg as promised - Manufacturer made to pay Rs.
1150 as compensation - Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Sharma, 2002(1) CPC 252 Pb.
Shortage upto 5% of detergent powder is permissible under Weight and Measures Rules, 1977 - 1999(2) CPC 72
Pb.
Weight of packet of surf found to be 965 grams against 1 Kg. printed on packet - OP directed to pay Rs. 15,00 as
cost and compensation - 2003(1) CPC 298 Pb.
T.V. Cable - Complaint filed by group of individuals against cable operator against stopping broadcasting is not
entertainable under CP Act - Complaint lies before Appellate Tribunal under TRAI - Sharad Chander Tiwari v. Star India
Pvt. Ltd., 2008(1) CPC 341 M.P.
T.V. Channel services - Opposite Party failed to provide additional T.V. Channel services despite payment of
extra amount - Directed to refund advance money - 2005(1) CPC 487 Raj.
O.P. refused to provide channel De-coders despite receiving payment for the same - O.P. directed to provide the
channel with compensation of Rs. 1 lac - 2005(2) CPC 323 N.C.
T.V. Set - A Salora T. V. Set purchased by complainant found to be defective - Dealer to replace picture tube
and do necessary repairs - Ronak Chand v. M/s. E.C.P. Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 281 Hr.
A seller is bound to remove the defect of the T. V. Set sold to the complainant or to refund its price - Regional
Manager, Uptron Indian Ltd. v. Lalit Kumar Gupta, 1992 CPC 442 Hr.
A T. V. Set purchased from respondent was found to be defective - Defect not removed - Respondent ordered to
replace the T. V. Set - 1993 CPC 727 Delhi
--Complainant made no representation to OP corporation within warranty period to repair the TV Set alleged to be
defective Allegation not proved Relief declined 2011(1) CPC 325 N.C.
Dealer failed to replace T.V. set as directed - Directed to pay full price after T.V. set is returned by complainant -
1999(2) CPC 626 U.P.
--Defect appeared even in replaced set - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 500 as repairing cost - 2005(1) CPC 372 U.P.
It was doubted that T.V. Set purchased was damaged with hammer knowingly - Relief cannot be denied on mere
doubt - 2000(1) CPC 683 Pb.
--Repairs of television was satisfactorily done by charging Rs. 4000 from the complainants wife Claim filed after
warranty period No relief can be granted in the absence of credible evidence - 2012(2) CPC 190 N.C.
No damage was proved to have been caused to the chassis of T.V. Set - Relief declined - 1996(1) CPC 411 Hr.
Opposite party agreed to remove defect of T. V. Set within one week - District Forum passed the order without
waiting for one week - Impugned order not legally valid - Om Parkash Chauhan v. Pinky Radio, 1999(1) CPC 391 Chd.
Opposite Party never shown apathy in changing defective part of T.V. Set - Reduction in compensation allowed -
2004(2) CPC 114 C.G.
Relief regarding defective T.V. set purchased 12 years back granted - Order of District Forum being without
jurisdiction, quashed - 1999(1) CPC 337 M.P.
Repair of T.V. Set not done satisfactorily - Complainant entitled to replacement of T.V. Set - Devashish Basu v.
M/s. Niky Tasha (India) Private Ltd., 1993 CPC 662 Delhi
Repair service found to be defective - Opposite party held liable to compensate the complainant - 1995(1) CPC 72
West Bengal
T. V. set found to be defective and ordered to be replaced by District Forum - Order of replacement upheld -
2005(1) CPC 612 T.N.
T.V. purchased found to be defective - Defect not removed after repairs - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as
compensation - 2004(2) CPC 580 Bihar
T.V. set could not be set right despite efforts of engineers - Respondent directed to replace the T.V. set -
Dashmesh Electronics v. Ishwar Chand, 1996(2) CPC 344 Hr.
T.V. set did not work properly even after repairs - O.P. directed to refund repair charges - 2003(1) CPC 381 U.P.
T.V. set found to be defective within warranty period - Order of replacement is justified - 1994(2) CPC 360 A.P.
71

T.V. Set not repaired during warranty period - Complainant entitled to refund with interest - 1994(1) CPC 103
A.P.
T.V. Set purchased was found to be defective - Dealer directed to refund its price with 12% interest - Pinky
Radios v. Raj Rani, 1999(1) CPC 638 Chd.
T.V. set purchased was found to be defective - Dealer directed to refund price with interest or replace the set with
costs of Rs. 3,000 - 1999(2) CPC 3 Pb.
--T.V. was purchased by complainant found to be defective - Dealer directed to deliver back repaid T.V. set with
remote alongwith cost of Rs. 1000 - 2001(2) CPC 675 Orissa
T.V. Repairs - Engineer of dealer failed to repair T.V. set and removed its original parts - Directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 10,679 to complainant - Preeti Garg (Smt.) v. M/s. Monica Electronics Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 60 Hr.
Tractors document OP failed to supply necessary documents despite payment of entire price of tractor
OP directed to supply documents before 7.12.2009 with cost of Rs. 25,000 - 2010(2) CPC 249 H.P.
Tailors negligence - As many as five shortcomings were found in the complaints suit prepared by guess
work - Tailor directed to pay Rs. 4,000 - Deepak (Shri) v. Mrs. Neema Dutt, 1996(1) CPC 120 Chandigarh
Tailoring service - Tailor stitching clothes in bad shape - Directed to pay Rs. 3,500 as compensation - Jagjit
Singh v. M/s. Knockout, Tailors and Drappers, 1997(2) CPC 113 Pb.
Suit not stitched properly by O.P. tailors - O.P. directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,400 with 10% interest -
2004(2) CPC 380 Raj.
Tailoring and Embroidery - Respondent failed to deliver suit of petitioners wife in time - Directed to pay
Rs. 500 with 18% interest - 1996(1) CPC 121 Chandigarh.
Taxi - Purchaser is entitled to 5% rebate on its price - Central Excise Department directed to refund the price
charged in excess - 1997(1) CPC 371 Hr.
Taxi plying - Plying of a taxi if for a commercial purpose - Act not applicable - 1991 CPC 300 N.C.
Taxi security - Dealer refusing to refund security amount against terms of agreement - Held liable to pay
compensation of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to customer - 1996(2) CPC 400 Chd.
Technical objection - Manufacturing defect in vehicle proved as corroborated by the report of
Mechanical Engineer Respondent cannot escape its liability by raising vague technical objections Relief
granted to complainant - 2013(3) CPC 499 H.P.
Technology Role of OP was limited to transfer of technology relating to jute stick particle board Claim for
deficiency in construction of premises and purchase of plants not justified Relief declined - 2011(3) CPC 89 N.C.
Terms of agreement - Role of OP was limited to transfer of technology relating to jute stick particle board
Claim for deficiency in construction of premises and purchase of plants not justified Relief declined - 2011(3) CPC 89
N.C.
Three Wheeler - The three wheeler started giving trouble just after its purchase - Dealer to pay Rs. 30,000 to
complainant - Tej Paul v. Ajesh Automobiles, 1998(2) CPC 291 Hr.
Time barred complaint - Delay of 10 years in filing a complaint relating to tractor defect without explaining
delay - Complaint rightly dismissed as time barred - 2002(2) CPC 78 N.C.
Tipper defect - Dealer rendered free services during warranty period - Minor payment for different services
made by complainant - Dealer not liable to replace the tipper - 2002(2) CPC 50 Chd.
Tipper Truck - Tipper Truck, found to be defective covering more distance at the time of passing of order - 1/3
of compensation reduced in appeal due to subsequent coverage - 1997(2) CPC 8 S.C.
Toilet soap eating - A minor child mistaking the toilet soap as eatable consumed it and fell ill Manufacturer
not liable as Toilet soap was clearly printed on the wrapper - 1998(1) CPC 47 Hr.
Tooth paste - Dead fly found in tooth paste - Manufacturer directed to pay Rs. 2000 as compensation - Colgate
Palmolive India Ltd. (M/s.) v. O.P. Gagneja, 2000(2) CPC 101 Pb.
Tractor - Dealers cannot be allowed to charge escalated price at their whim and to withhold delivery of tractors
inordinately - 1993 CPC 246 Hr.
- Undue delay in delivery of tractor - Purchaser entitled to 18% interest on deposit - Raghbir Singh v. The Zimidara
Engineering Company, 1995(2) CPC 573 Pb.
72

Tractor & Trailer - Tractor and trailer purchased found to be defective - Dealer directed to refund the price
with 15% interest - 2001(2) CPC 564 N.C.
Tractor accessories - Dealer refused to supply accessories with tractor - Complainant held entitled to Rs.
70,065 with 12% interest with cost of accessories - 2002(2) CPC 606 N.C.
Tractor battery - Tractors battery found to be defective - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 10 per day
as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 165 Pb.
Tractor breakdown - Parts of tractor found to be defective causing frequent break down - Complainant held
entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000 payable by dealer - 1996(2) CPC 642 Hr.
Tractors defect Certain parts including Piston, Oil seal and Shaft etc. had to be replaced within ten months
of purchase - Dealer and manufacturer are jointly liable for defect - 2008(2) CPC 380 N.C.
--Complainant failed by evidence to prove the defect in tractor - Relief declined - 1995(2) CPC 137 Hr.
Complainant suffered loss due to defective tractor sold to respondent - Compensation of Rs. 10,000 was held to be
sufficient - Jaidev Prasad Singh v. Auto Tractor Ltd., 1991 CPC 302 N.C.
Defect in clutch system after period of two months after purchase, cannot be attributed to a manufacturing defect -
1995(2) CPC 151 N.C.
--Complaint alleging tractor defect filed after expiry of four years without explaining the delay Order of State
Commission dismissing complaint on limitation justified Revision dismissed 2012(3) CPC 220 N.C.
Defect in tractor developed within 40 days after purchase - Defect could not be removed though it was taken 21
times to OP - Replacement of tractor justified - Order upheld - 2008(2) CPC 543 N.C.
Defect in tractor purchased from OP No. 1 and 2 appeared just after purchase - Tractor given for repairs was kept
by OP for 6 years - OP directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000 for loss of subsidy in addition to Rs. 1,69,000 awarded by District
Forum - Manager, Premanchal Motors (P) Ltd. v. Ramdas, 2008(2) CPC 396 M.P.
--District Forum directed OP to replace the tractor suffering from mechanical defect But State Commission
directed OP to carry necessary repairs with compensation of Rs. 35,000 - Impugned order upheld - 2014(3) CPC 378 N.C.
--It was the Dealer alone who was responsible for supplying a defective tractor No priority of contract between
complainant and manufacturer Manufacturer excepted from any liability in the case - 2014(2) CPC 177 N.C.
--Tractors defect could not be removed despite repeated repairs Refund of 90% price with cost and compensation
of Rs. 12,000 justified Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 17 N.C.
--District Forum directed to remove Tractors defect by manufacturer - Defects were pointed out during warranty
period - Order of District Forum upheld in appeal - 2003(2) CPC 150 Orissa
Engine of tractor necessitated reboring of engine within six months - OP directed to replace the tractor with brand
new one free of cost - 2007(1) CPC 497 N.C.
Manufacturing defect of tractor cannot be established without getting vehicle examined by expert - 2004(1) CPC
613 M.P.
--No manufacturing defect found in tractor as per report of expert except requirement of some repairs Replacement
of tractor ordered by Fora below unjustified Order set aside 2009(3) CPC 681 N.C.
No manufacturing defect had cropped up in the tractor during extended warranty period - Replacement of tractor
especially at belated stage not justified - 2001(2) CPC 215 U.P.
--O.P. removed minor defects of tractor when complainant approached for this purpose Tractor was not taken from
workshop even after repair Order of refund of price for manufacturing defect quashed Only compensation of Rs.
50,000/- allowed 2009(3) CPC 373 Pb.
Registration of tractor purchased could not be effected as sale letter was not issued by dealer - Dealer and
manufacturer directed to pay Rs. 45,000 as compensation - 2002(1) CPC 385 N.C.
Replacement of defective pump directed by State Commission by taking into consideration relevant evidence -
Prayer for placement of tractor declined - 2006(2) CPC 179 N.C.
Replacement of defective tractor ordered with compensation by concurrent finding - Interference in revision
declined - 2004(1) CPC 85 N.C.
Seller refused to refund the tractors price - Tractor not serving the purpose purchaser held entitled to refund with
costs - 1995(2) CPC 436 N.C.
Tractor giving trouble after purchase during guarantee period - Dealer directed to pay Rs. 5,000 with costs -
1998(2) CPC 225 Hr.
Tractor purchased by complainant found to be defective - Dealer directed to remove defect or refund its price -
1998(2) CPC 261 Hr.
73

Tractor purchased from dealer had to undergo extensive repairs - Complaint not to be dismissed without
examination of Expert Engineers - 1999(1) CPC 202 M.P.
--Tractor purchased from OP suffering from defect in engine and other important parts which could not be got
registered due to its defect OP directed to refund total price with 9% interest and to pay compensation/cost of Rs. 25,000
2010(1) CPC 444 Pb.
Tractor purchased in 1989 - Complaint alleging defect therein filed in 1992 - Complaint dismissed being barred by
limitation - 1996(1) CPC 607 Hr.
Tractor suffered from various defects which could not be removed - Opposite Party directed to pay compensation
Rs. 26,000 and remove the defects - H.M.T. Limited v. Ramesh Kumar, 2005(1) CPC 585 Chd.
Tractors defect in manufacturing well proved from experts statement - Refund of price with interest justified -
2008(1) CPC 328 Chhattisgarh
Tractor delivery - Dealer charging excess amount of Rs. 45,000 from complainant - Seniority list also violated
- Directed to refund excess amount with 18% interest - 1999(1) CPC 444 Pb.
Non delivery of tractor despite payment of necessary amount - O.P. directed to refund deposited amount - Unique
Automobiles v. Dattajirao Dnyanu Sawant, 2004(1) CPC 232 Maha.
Tractor not delivered within stipulated period of thirty days even after full payment - Complainant entitled to 12%
interest on deposited amount - 2002(1) CPC 573 Ker.
--Tractor not supplied despite payment of price Complainant not concerned with dispute between petitioner and
dealer Deficiency in service proved Compensation awarded by Fora below upheld - 2009(2) CPC 63 N.C.
--Complainant took a wrong plea that tractor was not delivered despite payment Actually, it was repossessed by
OP due to non payment of balance price Grant of relief declined - 2009(2) CPC 298 H.P.
Tractor detention - O.P. dealer detaining complainants tractor for 22 days for a petty balance amount of Rs.
1,422 O.P. directed to pay Rs. 8,000 as compensation - 2004(1) CPC 502 M.P.
Tractor documents - Tractor remained idle as documents for registration were delayed - Respondent is liable
to pay 12% interest on tractor price - 1995(2) CPC 159 Kar.
Tractor in police custody - Tractor remained in police custody due to a criminal case and not due to wrong
chasi number mentioned in receipt inadvertently - Dealer liable to pay reasonable compensation only - 2001(1) CPC 72
Pb.
Tractor parts - Parts of tractor found to be defective causing frequent break down - Complainant held entitled
to compensation of Rs. 10,000 payable by dealer - Vir Partap v. Punjab Tractors Ltd., 1996(2) CPC 642 Hr.
Tractor purchase - Amount paid for purchasing tractor misappropriated by dealer - Both dealer and
manufacturer are liable to reimburse complainant with cost - 2006(1) CPC 400 N.C.
A sum of Rs. 24491 spent on tractor repair but after expiry of warranty period - Dealer cannot be held liable for
alleged manufacturing defect - Labh Singh v. The Manager, M/s. Punjab Tractors, 2003(1) CPC 184 Pb.
--Allegation of complainant that OP did not supply 3 items with tractor despite payment not proved from evidence
No relief can be granted to complainant - 2011(3) CPC 364 N.C.
Complainant being a defaulter for non payment of balance of tractor price - Cannot claim of money or delivery of
tractor - Shobharam v. Proprietor, Dealer Ajib Singh, 2008(1) CPC 347 M.P.
Complainant suffered crop loss due to delay in delivery of tractor - Seller directed to pay 18% interest on deposits
- 1996(2) CPC 573 N.C.
Complicated question of facts involved in purchase of tractor suffering from defect - Parties rightly relegated to
civil court - 2002(1) CPC 625 N.C.
OP dealer prepared false documents in collsion with bank official showing delivery of tractor to complainant -
Directed to refund cost with 18% interest and Rs. 10,000 as compensation - 2003(2) CPC 154 Raj.
Purchase of a tractor for agricultural purpose does not fall under the Commercial purpose - Case is covered by
the Consumer Protection Act - Surinder Kumar v. M/s. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad, 1993 CPC 167 Hr.
--Purchase of tractor alongwith trailer and agricultural implements But only tractor was supplied OP directed to
refund price of trailer and agricultural implements with cost - 2009(1) CPC 732 N.C.
Tractor not delivered despite full payment by complainant - Both manufacturer and dealer directed to refund
amount with interest - Interest reduced from 20% to 12% - 2007(1) CPC 460 N.C.
Undue delay in delivery of tractor despite payment - Complainants entitled to delivery of tractor or refund of the
price - 2002(1) CPC 283 N.C.
Tractor replacement - Where defects of tractor can be removed by replacement of hydraulic pump assembly,
replacement of tractor or refund of its price is not proper - 2001(1) CPC 513 M.P.
74

--District Forum ordered replacement of tractor without any prior inspection of vehicle by any expert nor
manufacturing was impleaded as a party Impugned order not legally sustainable 2012(3) CPC 442 N.C.
Tractor sale - Complainants tractor was delivered from factory premises - Increase/decrease in excise duty
cannot be given effect to - 1999(2) CPC 348 Kar.
Tractor service - Appellants genuine demand for repair of tractor was carried out by the dealer - Replacement
of tractor disallowed - Moman Ram v. M/s. Jainsons Tractors, 1995(1) CPC 416 Hr.
Tractor trailor - Defect found in tractor Trailor purchased from respondent - Deficiency in service proved -
1996(2) CPC 274 N.C.
If person is competent to drive a tractor, he is not required to have a license for trailer which is a unit of the tractor
- Insurance claim allowed - Sri Ashok Hanumareddy Jakareddy v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2006(1) CPC 275 Kar.
Tractor tyres - Defect in tractor tyres was alleged after using the same for 2 years - Defect cannot be taken as
proved without cogent evidence - 1997(1) CPC 193 Chd.
Trade mark - Auto rickshaw - Dealer failed to allot trade mark of auto rickshaw resulting in refusal of
registration number - Dealer guilty of deficiency of service - 2002(2) CPC 41 Chd.
Transformer replacement Transformer purchased from a contractor approved by the petitioner
Nigam Defect detected in transformer within warranty period Order of replacement of transformer justified -
2013(1) CPC 209 N.C.
Transfer of vehicle Vehicle alleged to be defective sold to third person during pendency of appeal
without permission of court - Complainant is not a consumer after sale of vehicle - 2013(3) CPC 166 N.C.
Trolly paint - Paint on the trolly was defective and the iron sheet was also rusted Failure to give any
satisfactory explanation by the appellant Compensation increased from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 20,000 - 2009(2) CPC 180 Pb.
Trouser defect - Trouser purchased was found torn after few days - Inordinate delay of one and half year in
filing complaint - Complainant not entitled to any relief - 2002(2) CPC 20 Delhi
Truck delivery - Delay of 32 days in delivery of truck - Dealer directed to pay 18% interest on deposited
amount - 1999(2) CPC 213 H.P.
Truck repair - Truck purchased for commercial purpose - Complainant not a consumer under Consumer
Protection Act - Complaint for refusal to repair vehicle not maintainable - 1997(1) CPC 282 Hr.
Truck tyre - Complainant purchasing tyres for his truck, being used for his livelihood - Falls under the definition
of a consumer - Pasiklal Mohanlal v. Apollo Tyres Ltd., 1992 CPC 763 Guj.
Truck with defect - Truck with defect being used for commercial purpose - Complaint under C.P. Act not
maintainable - 1992 CPC 741 H.P.
Tubewell boring - Amount for boring the tubewell and pump set received by OP/petitioner Contractor was
only the agent and representative of OP, not to be blamed for failure of tubewell OP held liable for deficient service
2009(3) CPC 370 N.C.
Tubewell installation - Tubewell installed by OP successfully worked for three months - Compressor of
higher capacity installed on instruction of complainant which resulted in failure of tube well - OP not liable for deficiency
in service - 2006(2) CPC 370 Hr.
--Complainant spent Rs. 22000/- on installation of tubewell after survey of ground water by OP But quality of
water was saline Complainant faulted in seeking clarification from OP despite persuasion OP not liable for
deficiency in service 2009(3) CPC 332 N.C.
Tubewell Water - Contract for supply of tubewell water under rules not covered under the provisions of
Consumer Protection Act - 1994(2) CPC 252 Guj.
Turning Central Machine - Machine purchased for commercial use - Complaint under Consumer
Protection Act not maintainable - 1995(2) CPC 2 S.C.
Two wheeler defect - The year of manufacturing was 1994 but was wrongly quoted as 1996 - Vehicle
suffering from manufacturing defect - OP directed to refund its price with 12% interest with Rs. 5000 compensation -
2003(2) CPC 319 Pb.
Type writer - Advance paid for purchase of type writer - It is wrong to say that complainant is not consumer till
full payment is made - 1998(1) CPC 486 U.P.
75

Electrical type writer purchased for panchyat found non working - Dealer directed to replace the Machine and
extend warranty period - 2000(1) CPC 152 M.P.
Typewriter was taken away from the consumer as he failed to pay the balance - Alleged defect in typewriter is
afterthought not constituting a deficient service - 1995(1) CPC 228 Delhi
Tyre bursting - Only Jeep excluding its tyre was covered under the warranty terms - Complainant cannot claim
compensation for bursting of tyres - Sterling Motor Company (M/s.) v. Shri Dharam Singh, 1997(1) CPC 601 Hr.
--Complainant suffered loss due to bursting of tyres of lorry caused on account of alleged manufacturing defect
Expert found no defect on tyres Relief granted by the Fora below set aside - 2012(2) CPC 624 N.C.
Tyre defect Complainant failed to prove that tyre purchased from OP had any manufacturing defect Onus not
discharged by any cogent evidence Relief declined 2011(2) CPC 282 N.C.
Tyre deflating - Tyre purchased by a Company deflated within warranty period - Refund of price with
compensation allowed - 1999(2) CPC 141 Pb.
Tyre price - Non speaking and non-reasoned order passed directing Opposite Party to refund price of 5 tyres -
Order set aside - Case remanded - Modern Automobiles Ltd. v. N. D. Bhardwaj, 2004(1) CPC 647 H.P.
Tyre replacement - Complainant failed to prove that a dealer had agreed to change J.K. Tyres with Ceat Tyres
- Dealer not liable for deficiency in service for refusing replacement of tyre - 2000(1) CPC 478 Pb.
Tyre retreading Machinery - The machinery was purchased for retreading of old tyres under self
employment scheme - Manufacturer failed to remove the defect - Held liable for deficiency in service - 2000(2) CPC 258
U.P.
Tyres defect - Opinion of an expert appointed by District Forum and not by parties should be relied on to
determine manufacturing defect of tyres - 1997(1) CPC 668 N.C.
Manufacturer of tyres cannot give instruction to Dealer regarding specification of tyre for a particular brand of car
- Manufacturer alone is liable - 2004(2) CPC 201 Delhi
O.P. refused to replace defective tyre despite assurance - Directed to pay 50% price of tyre with interest and cost -
2006(1) CPC 182 Hr.
Tyre developed cracks within two months - Replacement of tyre or refund of price justified - 2005(1) CPC 505
Delhi
Tyre found defective 17 days after purchase - Non production of tube is no defence - Refund with 10% interest
ordered - 2003(2) CPC 145 Orissa
Tyre of tractor purchased with warranty of seven years but cracked after period of one and half years - Dealer
directed to pay cost of tyre with 12% interest and cost - MRF Ltd. v. Partap Singh, 2007(1) CPC 162 Chd.
--Tyres of vehicle excluded for insurance policy Accident caused due to defective tyres Manufacturer/dealer of
vehicle not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant 2010(1) CPC 7 N.C.
U.P.S. System - U.P.S. system found to be defective - O.P. directed to pay compensation of Rs. 12,000 with
12% interest - 2003(2) CPC 1 N.C.
Ultra Sound Scanner - Respondent failed to provide necessary training to complainant regarding the
Ultrasound Scanner - Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000 for loss in business - 1993 CPC 758 Hr.
--Machine found to be defective within warranty period - OP directed to pay total amount of Rs. 1,75,000 for loss
caused to petitioner - 2006(1) CPC 158 N.C.
The machine alleged to be defective, was purchased for commercial purpose - Complaint held not maintainable -
1993 CPC 428 Pb.
Ultrasound machine Ultrasound machine valued Rs. 13 lacs failed to function properly Concurrent
findings of Fora below directing OP to pay Rs. 5,20,000 with compensation of Rs. 50,000 justified Objection of
mishandling of machine repelled - 2012(2) CPC 364 N.C.
Ultrasonic Machine - The machine purchased by doctor for his hospital found to be defective - Dealer
directed to refund the price with 18% interest - 1997(1) CPC 467 N.C.
Machine installed in clinic, purpose being commercial, complaint regarding defect in machine, is not maintainable
under the Consumer Protection Act - 1993 CPC 129 Hr.
--Machine purchased by complainant was found to be defective - Seller directed to refund price of the machine -
1995(2) CPC 489 N.C.
--OP extended warranty period and continued to attend to make ultrasound machine functional from time to time
Complaint filed beyond two years of expiry of warranty Complainant not entitled to any relief - 2011(3) CPC 352 N.C.
76

OP failed to give demonstration of training of operation of machine as agreed - Complainant cancelled the order -
OP is liable to refund total price with 9% interest - 2006(1) CPC 262 Uttaranchal
Purchase of Ultrasound Machine was held to be for commercial use without discussing rejoinder of party - Order
not sustainable - 1998(2) CPC 165 Pb.
Ultrasound Scanner Machine alleged to be defective, purchased for Nursing Home i. e. Hospital - Purpose being
commercial, complaint does not lie - 1999(1) CPC 51 U.P.
Unconstitutional charges Requirement of catalytic converter in car was mandatory only in
Metropolitan cities Charges on this count from complainant is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -
2009(3) CPC 90 S.C.
Unfair trade practice - No cogent reasons was given by OP regarding overheating of engine of car Defects
could not be removed to the satisfaction of complainant Relief granted for committing unfair trade practice upheld -
2014(1) CPC 312 N.C.
--OPs sold vehicle prepared by assembling parts of old vehicles Manufacturing defect well established OPs
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 with cost of Rs. 45,000 - 2014(3) CPC 79 N.C.
--OP supplied defective ply which spoiled furniture of complainant Order of District Forum awarding
compensation of Rs. 27,000/- with cost and interest upheld - 2014(3) CPC 291 N.C.
--Old vehicle sold to respondent without disclosing actual date of manufacturing Petitioner/OP rightly directed to
replace the vehicle with a new one Impugned order upheld - 2014(1) CPC 199 N.C.
--Petitioners allegation that an old and defective refrigerator was sold by respondent to him was found baseless by
Fora below by concurrent finding No fault can be found with impugned order Petition dismissed - 2014(3) CPC 285
N.C.
--Plastic sheets purchased from OP had cracked and were not eaten by rats as alleged Unfair trade practice on the
part of OPs well proved Relief granted by the Fora below upheld - 2014(2) CPC 149 N.C.
Unilateral Statement - Complainants unilateral statement without cogent evidence held insufficient to prove
defect in fridge purchased - 2001(1) CPC 215 Ker.
Unladen weight - Petitioner could not prove allegation of unladen weight and payload of vehicle purchased
from respondent Order of State Commission denying any relief upheld - 2014(1) CPC 126 N.C.
Use of defective bearing - OP failed to use 2 out of 12 bearings of standard manufacturing of cumin
Functioning of Diesel Engines was unsuccessful even after spending Rs. 3,39,357 - OP was rightly directed to pay Rs.
4,90,000 with cost of Rs. 3,000 for deficiency in service 2012(3) CPC 372 N.C.
V.C.P. Set - V.C.P. purchased with one year guarantee - Complaint can be filed before District Forum to remove
its defect - 1995(1) CPC 11 U.P.
--Defect could not be removed in V.C.R. by repairs - Seller liable to replace the V.C.R. - 1994(1) CPC 621 Delhi
--Demand of service charges for repair of V.C.R. within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service - 2000(1)
CPC 67 Pb.
Vague Allegation - Once defect in T. V. Set is established - Complaint cannot be dismissed on vague
allegation raised by dealer - Ronak Chand v. M/s. E.C.P. Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 281 Hr.
Vague allegations of removal of spare parts of oldest car levelled by complainant - Complaint frivolous -
Complainant directed to remove car within one week - Manmohan Singh Dard, Press Reporter v. Yash Pal Ahuja,
Ahuja Service Station, 1998(2) CPC 642 Hr.
Van Defect - Two vans purchased by complainant-Trust were having manufacturing defect - Dealer held liable
to compensate the Trust - 1996(1) CPC 484 Raj.
Vehicle Supplied used car Manufacturing defect Car was taken to garage on 12 occasions Vehicle shall be
repaired at the cost of OPs and to extend the warranty for a period of six months, after repair with compensation of Rs.
50,000 2011(1) CPC 167 N.C.
Vehicle delivery - Delay of 9 months in delivery of vehicle - Complainant entitled to refund of price with
interest - 1994(2) CPC 262 Kerala
Delivery of vehicle delayed despite payment of full price which was remitted by dealer to manufacturer -
Manufacturer is solely liable for deficiency in service - 2008(3) CPC 384 N.C.
Vehicle not delivered within stipulated period - Dealer held liable to pay Rs. 5,000 to complainant as
compensation - 1995(2) CPC 333 Maha.
77

Vehicles defect - Complainant failed to send satisfaction letter after repair of vehicle held not entitled to any
compensation - 2002(1) CPC 620 N.C.
Defect in vehicle continued even after replacement of engine - OP directed to pay price of vehicle with cost and
compensation or replace the vehicle - 2008(2) CPC 181 N.C.
Defect occurred during warranty period - Replacement of vehicle is not necessary if defect can remove by
replacement of certain parts - Complainant awarded total sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation and cost - 2008(2) CPC 133
N.C.
--Defect rectified by OP as per job cards on record Complainant directed to take back vehicle with extension of
warranty period of one year - 2009(1) CPC 445 N.C.
State Commission directed OP/dealer to pay compensation on return of vehicle by complainant - Procedure of
Sec. 13 (b) of CP Act was not followed - Order set aside - Case remanded - 2008(2) CPC 300 N.C.
--Tyres badly damaged - Complainant himself to be blamed for improper handling of vehicle - Deficiency in service
not proved - No relief entitled - 2008(3) CPC 290 N.C.
Vehicle purchased found to be defective and was still lying with O.P. for repairs - O.P. directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs
as price of vehicle with litigation cost Rs. 2,500 - Tribhuvan Industries Ltd. (M/s.) v. M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,
2005(2) CPC 573 U.P.
--Vehicle suffered from various defects occurring again and again Moderate compensation of Rs. 25,000/- will be
sufficient payable by the respondent Refund of price of vehicle not justified - 2013(2) CPC 207 N.C.
Vehicles replacement - District Forum passed its order of replacement of vehicle on the statement of
interested witnesses produced at the request of complainant Order not maintainable Expert engineer appointed to
rectify the defect within 10 days 2012(3) CPC 192 Hr.
Vehicle Inspection - Inspection of vehicle is necessary to assess its capability - 1997(2) CPC 608 N.C.
Vehicle Purchase - Undue delay in delivery of Uno Car after receiving the booking amount - Opposite Party
directed to refund the amount with 18% interest - 2002(1) CPC 534 Meghalaya
--Petitioner could not prove allegation of unladen weight and payload of vehicle purchased from respondent Order
of State Commission denying any relief upheld - 2014(1) CPC 126 N.C.
--Lot of difference was found in price, power and cylinder capacity of both vehicles Relief except price of tyre
denied - 2010(2) CPC 705 H.P.
Vehicle Registration - Registration of purchased vehicle could not be effected as No Objection Certificate
was not issued by seller - Complainant allowed 12% interest p.a. on vehicles price - 1998(1) CPC 391 Pb.
Vehicle run on battery - Complainant failed to prove that OP had assured 80 KM in a single charge of
battery Allegedly vehicle run by battery covered only 15-20 KM OP is not liable for deficient service in absence of
cogent evidence 2012(3) CPC 611 N.C.
Vexatious complaint - Complainant filed a vexatious complaint alleging manufacturing defect in car which
could not be proved Complaint dismissed with cost of Rs. 15,000 2009(3) CPC 289 N.C.
Vibratory Roller - Respondent supplier failed to remove defect of Roller despite repeated request -
Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,417 with 18% interest - 1996(1) CPC 125 Chd.
Vicarious Liability - Authorized distributor of LPG acting under authority of Bharat Petroleum Corporation -
Corporation not absolved from liability to compensate due to deficient service on part of its distributor - 2006(2) CPC 316
N.C.
Video Player - Player given for repairs but not returned for two years - O. P. directed to pay compensation Rs.
16,000 for deficient service - 2004(2) CPC 60 T.N.
Vim Powder - Seller charged 20 paise more on Vim Powder - Actually price was increased when package was
sold - Relief declined - Kanahiya Lal Ramkishan v. Shiv Om Agrawal, 1994(2) CPC 211 M.P.
Wagons defect - Wagon started giving noise but defect not removed No manufacturing defect proved by any
expert evidence Relief declined Impugned order upheld 2011(2) CPC 623 N.C.
Walkman defect - Walkman purchased from OP had shown defect during warranty period - Replacement of
walkman or refund of its price is justified - Radio House (M/s.) v. Sandeep Ghosh, 2008(1) CPC 703 Kar.
Warranty - A contract for sale of goods with a warranty comes under the purview of Consumer jurisdiction -
Balbir Singh Sangha v. Refco and Wessamat Appliances (Private) Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 84 Pb.
78

Clause of warranty will apply only to the original purchaser of car and not to a transferee - Hardayal Singh v.
Cargo Motors Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 508 Pb.
Column of warranty left blank - Warranty cannot be presumed for indefinite period - 1992 CPC 417 N.C.
Complainant is a consumer where purchased machine found to be defective during warranty period even when
machine was purchased for commercial purpose - 1996(1) CPC 550 W.Bengal
--Dealer cannot escape liability for deficient service if defect is not removed during warranty period even when
goods were purchaser for commercial purpose - 1997(2) CPC 273 Ker.
Demand of service charges for repair of V.C.R. within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service - 2000(1)
CPC 67 Pb.
--OP extended warranty period and continued to attend to make ultrasound machine functional from time to time
Complaint filed beyond two years of expiry of warranty Complainant not entitled to any relief - 2011(3) CPC 352 N.C.
Emery stones purchased for factory were found to be defective during warranty period - Complaint could not be
dismissed that purchase was for commercial purpose - Satish Kumar v. M/s. Master Pipes Stores, 1999(1) CPC 510 Pb.
EPABX system suffered from manufacturing defect during warranty period - Complainant entitled to relief even
after expiry of warranty period - 2001(1) CPC 474 Ker.
Goods purchased for commercial purpose with warranty - Purchaser is a consumer under the Act - 2001(2) CPC
474 N.C.
If warranty is not given to all the customers equally, act of dealer amounts to arbitrariness - Satinder Singh v. M/s.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 488 Pb.
--It is misconceived contention that sold goods cannot be declared defective after expiry of warranty period -
2009(1) CPC 389 Delhi
Liability of a trader does not extend beyond period of warranty - Rajeev Kumar v. Wheels Worlds, 1995(1) CPC
354 Hr.
Manufacturing defect found in car purchased - O.P. directed to make the car worth road running with one year
warranty - 2004(1) CPC 421 N.C.
Only Jeep excluding its tyre was covered under the warranty terms - Complainant cannot claim compensation for
bursting of tyres - Sterling Motor Company (M/s.) v. Shri Dharam Singh, 1997(1) CPC 601 Hr.
Power tiller purchased was giving trouble during warranty period - Replacement of tiller justified - 1999(2) CPC
518 N.C.
--Only day to day defects in running of car were found which were removed by timely repairs Parts covered under
warranty were replaced free of costs OP not liable for any deficient service 2011(1) CPC 217 N.C.
Purchase of Van for commercial purpose is no bar to compensation where defect was detected during warranty
period - 1999(1) CPC 621 H.P.
Seller not to charge repair charges from the buyer of scooter during the warranty period - 1992 CPC 292 Kar.
Warranty does not come to an end by the mere fact that purchaser had tried to use the purchased belt - 1995(2)
CPC 420 Hr.
Warranty given for proper service of Computer purchased - Question of purchase for commercial purpose is not
relevant - 2000(1) CPC 278 Ker.
Warranty given in sale of a machine includes a consideration for rendering a service - 1992 CPC 380 N.C.
Warranty not covering certain parts of car - Defect in such parts does not constitute a deficiency in service -
1998(1) CPC 488 T.N.
--Where question of warranty is involved, question of purchase for commercial use became irrelevant - 1999(2)
CPC 256 Chd.
Where warranty for proper service of Press Machine was given, relief cannot be declined merely that purchase
was for commercial use - 1999(2) CPC 364 M.P.
Warranty Expiry - Defect occurred after expiry of service contract - Dealer not liable to compensate - 1997(1)
CPC 427 N.C.
Warranty Extension - Electrical type writer purchased for panchyat found non working - Dealer directed to
replace the Machine and extend warranty period - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. M.P. Sachiv, Rajya
Vitta Ayog, 2000(1) CPC 152 M.P.
Warranty Period - A sum of Rs. 24491 spent on tractor repair but after expiry of warranty period - Dealer
cannot be held liable for alleged manufacturing defect - 2003(1) CPC 184 Pb.
District Forum ordered replacement of certain parts of jeep purchased after period of warranty - Order not
sustainable - 2000(1) CPC 444 Maha.
79

Vehicle developed defect during warrant period - Plea of commercial purpose not available to O.P. - Competent
Automobiles Co. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Gopal Singh Thakur, 2008(1) CPC 135 H.P.
Liability of manufacturers or the traders does not extend beyond the period of warranty - 1994(1) CPC 363 Hr.
Washing Machine - A defective machine was supplied to the complainant - Respondent directed to pay price
of machine with interest and cost - 1991 CPC 167 Kar.
Complainant gave a washing machine for repair - Condition of machine became bad to worse after repairs -
Complainant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 5085 - Kool Controls v. Yogesh Chander, 2001(2) CPC 323 Chd.
Defect in washing machine was detected within warranty period - Respondent directed to pay the price of machine
or replace it - 1998(1) CPC 529 Pb.
Machine found defective - Warranty period extended for one year from the date of order of Commission for free
service - Whiteline Appliance v. Mrs. Sudha Prasad, 1991 CPC 426 Delhi
Only grievance of complainant was that washing machine was not working subsfactorily - Compensation not
permissible for such a vague allegation - 2002(1) CPC 291 Chd.
Washing machine rotating in one direction - Not washing cloths properly - Defect could not be removed -
Opposite Party directed to replace the Machine - Bahadar Chand and Company (M/s.) v. Mr. Amrik Singh, 2004(2) CPC
106 Pb.
--Washing machine manufactured by OP found to be defective - Claim for replacement or refund of cost of machine
justified - 2002(2) CPC 413 Delhi
Washing machine purchased from opposite party found to be defective from the very beginning - Opposite party
directed to refund price with 12% p.a. interest - 2000(2) CPC 310 Chd.
Water Heater Defect - Water heater found to be defective - Dealer refused to remove defect - Directed refund
of price with interest & cost - 2002(1) CPC 4 Chd.
Water meter defect Petitioner was unable to discharge onus of proof regarding charging of excess water
charges, held concurrent finding of Fora below denying any relief upheld - 2013(2) CPC 555 N.C.
Wear and tear - Repairs of general wears and tears cannot be termed as manufacturing defect - 2010(3) CPC
162 Hr.
Weighbridge Machine - Machine purchased with warranty proved to be defective - It was not duly verified
and stamped - dealer directed to refund total price with 18% interest and Rs. 5,000 as costs - 1999(2) CPC 256 Chd.
--District Forum ordered replacement of defective weigh bridge or to pay its price of Rs. 4,10,000 which was
reduced by the State Commission to Rs. 3,75,000 - As impugned order is just and proper, interference in revision declined
- 2012(2) CPC 139 N.C.
Weighing Scale - Defective weighing scale sent for repairs but not returned - Complainant entitled to
compensation - 1994(1) CPC 310 Bom.
Weighing scale defect - Weighing scale machine suffering from manufacturing defect OP falsely denied
full payment of machine OP directed to replace the machine or refund the price with 14% interest - 2011(3) CPC 96
N.C.
Weight of Packet - Shortage upto 5% of detergent powder is permissible under Weight and Measures Rules,
1977 - 1999(2) CPC 72 Pb.
Words and Phrases - 'Service' - 'Defect' - Matter relating to offset printing machine is not covered by
service but by defect in goods purchased - 1992 CPC 770 N.C.
Wrong Chasi Number - Tractor remained in police custody due to a criminal case and not due to wrong
chasis number mentioned in receipt inadvertently - Dealer liable to pay reasonable compensation only - 2001(1) CPC 72
Pb.
Xerox Machine - Defect - Xerox machine purchased by complainant found to be defective as per report of
experts - OP directed to pay cost of machine with 12% interest - 2002(2) CPC 183 W.Bengal
Respondent failed to contradict evidence of complainant that Xerox Machine was purchased for earning her
livelihood - Complainant held entitled to relief - 1997(2) CPC 352 N.C.
The insured Machine destroyed in fire caused due to electric sparks - Complainant held entitled to relief from the
Board - 1993 CPC 692 N.C.
--Xerox machine was purchased by complainant at higher price found to be defective - Dealer directed to pay
compensation of Rs. 5000 - 2002(1) CPC 129 A.P.
80

--The machine alleged to be defective was not being used properly by complainant - Relief declined - 1994(2) CPC
578 N.C.
--Xerox machine developed defects within 30 days of purchase Once genuineness of machine as manufactured by
Canon was not disputed, it was bounden duty of the petitioner to rectify the defects 2010(1) CPC 517 N.C.
X-Ray Machine - A case of breach of contract about supply of an X-Ray Machine in time is not maintainable
under Act - 1995(2) CPC 307 Raj.
An Institution earning huge profit is not a Consumer - Complaint against defective X-ray machine dismissed -
2004(2) CPC 190 U.P.
--District Forum directed OP to refund excess amount of Rs. 84,000 wrongly charged from complainant Order
based upon documentary evidence wrongly reserved in appeal Impugned Order not sustainable Petition allowed -
2012(1) CPC 519 N.C.
Doctor purchased X-Ray machine for small enterprise in small town - Plea of machine being purchased for
commercial use is not tenable - 1996(2) CPC 140 Hr.
Expenses incurred on repairs of defective X-ray machine by complainant - OP directed to pay repair charges -
2003(2) CPC 594 N.C.
X-Ray machine was alleged to be purchased for self employment - Question of commercial purpose should be
decided on the basis of cogent evidence - 1997(2) CPC 118 N.C.

*****

Consumer Protection Cases

[C.P.C.]
A Monthly Law Journal
Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of
Telephone, Railways, Transport, Electricity, Housing Board, Urban Development Authorities, Industrial and
Consumer Associations etc.

Details of Leather Bound Volumes

1. 1991 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock
2. 1992 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock
3. 1993 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock
4. 1994 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
5. 1994 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
6. 1995 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
7. 1995 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
8. 1996 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
9. 1996 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
10. 1997 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
11. 1997 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
12. 1998 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
13. 1998 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
14. 1999 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
15. 1999 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
16. 2000 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
17. 2000 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
18. 2001 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
19. 2001 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
20. 2002 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
81

21. 2002 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

22. 2003 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
23. 2003 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
24. 2004 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
25. 2004 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
26. 2005 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
27. 2005 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
28. 2006 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
29. 2006 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
30. 2007 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
31. 2007 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

32. 2008 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

33. 2008 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
34. 2008 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

35. 2009 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

36. 2009 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
37. 2009 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

38. 2010 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

39. 2010 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
40. 2010 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

41. 2011 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

42. 2011 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
43. 2011 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

44. 2012 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

45. 2012 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
46. 2012 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

47. 2013 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

47. 2013 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
48. 2013 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

49. 2014 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

50. 2014 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only
51. 2014 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 830/- only

51. Consumer Protection Cases Digest 1991 to 2008 Rs. 1420/- only
52. Consumer Protection Cases Digest 2008 to 2013 Rs. 1180/- only

Consumer Protection Cases Digest 1991 to 2013 will be free of cost after purchasing ten books in a single
lot.

Note :--
If you require a copy of any judgment through e-mail as cited in our digest, you may send Rs. One hundred
per judgment by depositing it in favour of Consumer Protection Cases in our account No. 4425002106002459
in Punjab National Bank. IFSC Code PUNB 0442500.

Address for Correspondence :

82

Dhariwal Publications
Near Gate No. 5,
Punjab & Haryana High Court
CHANDIGARH 160001

M : 09417414675

E-mail cpc_chd@yahoo.com

www.consumercases.in
www.advocatesinindia.com

****