Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rajiv Shukla Vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd (Supreme Court)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/09/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rajiv Shukla Vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd (Supreme Court of India)

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein ­ original complainant booked a new car and as such paid the entire sale consideration. Therefore, when the complainant – customer booked a new car and paid the sale consideration of a new car, the dealer was supposed to and/or bound to deliver the new car. Instead, the respondent no.1 – dealer delivered the used car which was used as “Demo­Test Drive Vehicle”. Even as per the findings recorded by the National Commission the car which was delivered was a defective car. Even to deliver the defective car against the new car was also not permissible. Not to deliver the new car despite the full sale consideration paid and/or to deliver the defective car can be said to be unfair trade practice. Therefore, as such the District Forum and the State Commission were absolutely justified in directing the respondent no.1 – dealer to replace the delivered car and to deliver a new car.

SC held that Non delivery of a new car can be said to be an unfair trade practice and even it can be said to be dishonesty on the part of the dealer and against the morality and ethics. As observed hereinabove, once the new car was booked and the full sale consideration was paid, a duty was cast upon the dealer to deliver a new car which is not defective therefore the District Forum as well as the State Commission were justified in directing the dealer to give delivery of a new car.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the National Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in Revision Petition No.2082 of 2015 by which the National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum as well as the State Commission, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031