SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

K.MADHURI LATHA, L.MANOHARAN
CONTROL ZEE (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
P. ABDUL SAMAD – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. S. Reghukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. A. Abdul Kharim, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—The opposite parties 1 to 3 in O.P. No. 275/94 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode are the appellants.

2. The complainant sought for a direction to opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund Rs. 87,800/- through with interest and also for damages of Rs. 50,000/-. The allegation was the opposite parties 1 to 3 received Rs. 63,800/- for supply of a computer, the first opposite party received Rs. 24,500/- for supplying laser printer, and the opposite parties 1 to 3 agreed to supply the same as per the specification in Exbts. A1 and A3 series quotation. The grievance of the complainant was that the computer supplied was not in accordance with the specification as agreed. Consequently the complainant could not functioning the same, therefore, the complainant wanted return of the amount received by the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 to 3 in their version among other contentions sought to maintain, that the opposite party No. 4 placed an order for a computer, a laser printer and a UPS with them, that the opposite party No. 1 is only a booking agency of M/s. Sterling Computers Pvt. Ltd., Madras who are the manufacturers of th









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top