The apex court held that although the company had resorted to unfair trade practice it is not enough for imposing award for damages unless causing of loss is established.
A bench of justices V Gopala Gowda and A K Goel, however, upheld the Commission order directing the company to refund the money and get back the vehicle from one of its 260 odd buyers of the car who had filed the case against it.
It said, "We also make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of any aggrieved party raising a claim before an appropriate forum in accordance with law".
"The concurrent finding recorded by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission to the effect that unfair trade practice was committed by the appellant which is based on adequate material on record, does not call for any interference by this Court and the same is affirmed," it said.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
