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

RUMNITA MITTAL, MAHESH CHANDRA, J.D.KAPOOR
RAJENDER PAL – Appellant
Versus
VOLTAS LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.R. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.

ORDER

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—The appellant purchased a refrigerator from the respondent on 9.9.1988 with seven years warrantee for the compressor and evaporator. It started giving trouble from the day one. First complaint of its being defective was made on 26.9.1988 and second complaint was made on 30.6.1990. After initial inspection by the mechanic the refrigerator was taken to the workshop of the respondent on 4.7.1990 and returned on 7.7.1990. The defects in the refrigerator were not rectified and the defects persisted and it was again taken to the workshop on 17.8.1990 and returned after a week, this exercise continued taking place till May, 1994. The respondent raised a bill for Rs. 3,700/- for carrying out the repairs. The complaint of the appellant for taking back the refrigerator or refund of its price was dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.9.1996 on the premises that the refrigerator did not suffer from any manufacturing defects. Instant appeal is directed against the impugned order. Even if we assume that the refrigerator did not suffer from any manufacturing defects but the immense inconvenience, harassment, mental torture the appellant suffered by taking







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