This tag is associated with 1 post

After completing the entire transaction of purchasing a car for 11 lakhas and add, the subsequent price decrease offer to the public is not amount unfair trade practice and it is not deficiency of service the price of the car is declared as Rs.9,99,999/- in the special offer. Despite that opponent No. 2 has recovered Rs.11,63,876/- from the complainant. The Opponent No.2 has usurped the benefit of special offer and has recovered excess amount of Rs.1,38,877/-. The complainant No.2 has usurped the same. Agreement is over on 3.9.08. Car is delivered to the complainant. Amount has been paid. Full and final payment has been made. Thereafter if any advertisement has been published between 6.9.08 to 9.9.08, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit. Because the agreement was over and price was paid before that. No special offer was published in newspaper on the dates on which agreement of car was over. The complainant is therefore not entitled to get benefit of offer. It is the say of the complainant that had the Opponent No.2 informed about such offer, the complainant would not have purchased the car as is purchased. He would have purchased the car at a lesser price under the offer. So we do not agree with the contention of complainant that opponents have resorted to unfair trade practice. Because the seller is not bound to declare the secrets of his trade. Again the seller is not bound to inform the consumer about the date of advertisement of the scheme. There are no such rules. If the seller is kept in ban like this then seller cannot do business before the scheme. Under these circumstances, we do not agree with the contention of complainant that Opponent No.2 is bound to inform about future scheme and by not doing so, opponent No.2 has resorted to unfair trade practice.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 94  OF  2012 (From the order dated 22.09.2011 in Appeal No.491/2010 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad) Shri Shankerlal L. Sachdev, Advocate Meera, 36/C/A, Bhuj – Kachchh, Gujarat                                                                                               …….. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Managing Director, Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. A/1/1, M.I.D.C., Five Star Industries Area, Shendra, Aurangabad – 431 201 2. The … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,913,899 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com