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

V.K.AGRAWAL, VEENA MISRA
C. S. Rahalkar – Appellant
Versus
S. Khankhoje – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant :Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri Devesh Dixit, Advocate.

ORDER

V.K. Agarwal. President — This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20.4.2001 in complaint No. 162/05 by District Consumer Dispu-tes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (herein-after called the ‘District Forum’ for short) dismissing the complaint of the appe-llant.

2. Undisputably, the complainant/appellant purchased a Air Conditioner from the respondent on 28.1.1994. According to the averments in the com-plaint the warranty period was one year. However, the said Air Conditioner developed defects within 3 months. It was also averred by the complainant that the said air conditioner was not as per the specification and old air conditioner was supplied to him by the respondent. The complaint of the appellant was not duly attended to by the respondent, due to which the complainant got it repaired through Fridge Engineering, Jacob Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur. According to the complainant/appellant he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 9,250/- towards repairs of the air conditioner. The com-plainant claimed damages totalling

Rs. 1,92,500/- as detailed in the com-plaint.

3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It was averred 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