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

M.A.A.KHAN, SUSHMA TANWAR
MAHENDRA KUMAR ARORA – Appellant
Versus
ELECTRO REFRIGERATION ENGINEERS – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Tantia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. O.P. Verma, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—Heard.

The appellant had purchased a Kelvinator fridge for Rs. 8,100 from the respondent on 1.6.1993. According to the appellant the said fridge did not give satisfactory services to him whereupon he contacted the respondent for change of the compressor. The respondent duly replaced the compressor of the fridge on 19.5.1994. But still the grievance of the appellant with regard to the alleged defect in the cooling system of the fridge continued and he, therefore, again contacted the respondent on 11.6.1994. Since the respondent did not remove the defect in the fridge, the appellant filed his complaint before the D.F. The D.F. dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant had given a warranty for one year only which had expired on 31.5.1993 and, therefore, it was not liable to repair the fridge any more. It was also pointed out by the D.F. that for services during the next 6 years, there was a contract of the purchasers of the fridge with Expo Machinery Ltd., New Delhi which was not made a party to the present complaint and, therefore, no relief could be awarded to the appellant.

2. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellan







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