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

J.D.KAPOOR, RUMNITA MITTAL
BHAGIRATHI VERMA – Appellant
Versus
EUREKA FORBES LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—On account of having not been provided the agreed service in respect of Aquaguard water-filter-cum-purifier by the respondent-company, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.3.1997 has held the respondent guilty for deficiency in service and directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 700 out of the contracted amount of Rs. 900 and also directed to pay Rs. 200 as compensation and Rs. 300 towards cost of litigation. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Though according to the appellant, he purchased the Aquaguard water-filter-cum-purifier from the agent of the respondent company on the assurance that life time free service of the purifier would be provided but subsequently this assurance was found to be false and he entered into a three years service contract with the respondent on payment of consideration of Rs. 900. According to this contract, three periodical services per year as well as technical replacement of the candle and other spare parts free of charge were to be provided. According to the respondent, under the annual maintenance contract from 11.11.1992 to 10.11




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