Baramulla District Consumer Commission Holds Himalayan Motors Liable For Supplying Defective Vehicle

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain, President, and Ms. Nyla Yaseen, Member, held Himalayan Motors (Seller) jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for delivering a defective Supro Profit Truck Maxi VX WD vehicle. Facts and Background: Mr. Mohammed Altaf Puju, a resident of Patan, District Baramulla, filed a consumer complaint against Himalayan Motors (OP 1) and J&K Bank (OP 2) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant booked a Supro Profit Truck Maxi VX WD vehicle from Himalayan Motors, paying an advance of ₹5,000/- and obtaining a loan of ₹7,54,000/- from J&K Bank, which was directly credited to the seller's account. He also contributed ₹55,000/- personally. The vehicle was delivered in February 2024. Soon after delivery, the vehicle developed mechanical defects, frequently breaking down on the road and causing substantial inconvenience and loss. On one occasion near Kargil, the vehicle failed completely and had to be transported to the showroom at a cost of ₹25,000/-. Despite repeated complaints, the seller offered only verbal assurances and inadequate repairs. The complainant further alleged that the seller disconnected the silencer without his consent, worsening the vehicle's condition. Several repair bills bearing another person's name (Farooq Ahmad) suggested that the vehicle might have been previously used. The vehicle remains in the seller's workshop, while the complainant continues to pay ₹12,000/- monthly installments to the bank. He alleged unfair trade practices, deficiency in service, and breach of trust, seeking a replacement vehicle or refund with interest, along with ₹50,000/- as compensation and ₹20,000/- towards litigation costs. Contentions of the Parties: The complainant argued that Himalayan Motors had delivered a defective vehicle, thereby violating his consumer rights and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The seller failed to rectify the mechanical defects despite repeated attempts and continued to ignore his complaints. He further alleged that the seller's decision to cut the silencer without permission showed gross negligence and unprofessionalism. The complainant relied on the repair bills showing the name of another person as strong evidence that the vehicle was not new at the time of sale. He contended that the conduct of the seller caused him financial loss, emotional distress, and loss of livelihood, as he had purchased the vehicle for employment purposes. On the other hand, although both Himalayan Motors (Seller) and J&K Bank (Financier) filed replies to the notice, they failed to appear before the Commission for further proceedings. They did not present any written arguments, evidence, or oral submissions. Consequently, the case proceeded ex parte against both parties. Observations of the Commission: After examining the pleadings, evidence, and witness statements, the Commission observed that the vehicle developed mechanical defects shortly after delivery, and despite multiple repairs, the problems persisted. This established clear deficiency in service on the part of Himalayan Motors. The Commission noted that cutting the silencer without the complainant's consent amounted to unauthorized tampering and further damaged the vehicle. The presence of another individual's name on repair bills also suggested that the vehicle was pre-owned, substantiating the complainant's claim of unfair trade practice. The Commission concluded that the evidence presented by the complainant was credible and unchallenged, as the opposite parties failed to appear or present a defense. Hence, the matter was rightly decided ex parte. Decision: Based on the findings, the Commission directed Himalayan Motors (Seller) to either: Replace the defective vehicle with a new one of the same brand, model, and specifications; or Refund the full purchase amount to the complainant along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of payment until realization. In addition, the Commission ordered the seller to pay: ₹50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial hardship; and ₹20,000/- as litigation expenses. The seller was directed to comply with the order within four weeks from the date of the judgment. Case Title: Mohammed Altaf Puju v. Himalayan Motors & J&K Bank Case Num: Consumer Complaint No. 39/2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Baramulla District Consumer Commission Holds Himalayan Motors Liable For Supplying Defective Vehicle

Praveen Mishra

Tags