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

K.S.GUPTA, RAJYALAKSHMI RAO
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sunder Steels Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri S.S. Rana and Mrs. B. Rana, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Shri Sridhar Potaraju, Advocate.

ORDER

K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member— This appeal by the opposite party Co. is directed against the order dated 30.7.2004 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad whereby it was directed to pay amount of Rs.5,00,000 as compensation to respondent No.1 complainant No.1.

2. To run the factory, the respondent No.1 had purchased 1500 KVA Detroit Diesel Engine from the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 69,20,100. The DG set was installed in the factory of respondent No.1 on 17.1.1997 and it was commissioned on 11.2.1997. Warranty period was 12 months from the date of commissioning or 18 months from the date of supply, whichever was earlier. Complaint alleging defect in the DG set and deficiency in service in rectifying the defects was filed by respondent No.1 with the prayer of replacement of DG set and payment of Rs.25,00,000 as compensation which was contested by the appellant Co. by filing written version. One of the pleas raised in written version was that respondent No.1 is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is, therefore, not maintainable. This plea was decided against the appellant Co. by the State Commiss






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