Back
S.N.KAPOOR, B.K.TAIMNI
PRITHU NATH & COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
TUBE ROSE ESTATE (P) LTD. – Respondent
Question 1? What is the remedy awarded for deficiency in service in this case? Question 2? What is the impact of delay in filing the appeal on the appellate decision? Question 3? What factors justified upholding the refund and compensation award to the complainant?
Key Points: - The State Commission awarded refund of purchase price plus interest and Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment; upheld by the Appellate Court. [26000040060003][26000040060004] - The machine was repeatedly defective and not returned for over 10 years after repairs were sought; this justified the remedy. [26000040060001][26000040060003] - The appellant’s delay in filing the appeal and the continuous defects in the machine were key considerations for upholding the decision. [26000040060002][26000040060003] - The appeal was dismissed; no interference with the State Commission’s order. (!) [26000040060004] - The respondent purchased a Building-Hoist Machine for Rs. 93,860; defects began from the beginning; multiple repair attempts failed. [26000040060001]
Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member—Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased a ‘Building-Hoist’ Machine from the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 93,860 which was fixed by the technicians of the appellant but it is alleged by the complainant that it started giving problems from the very beginning, for which the complaints were repeatedly made to the appellant, who at least on half a dozen occasions sent their technicians to carry out the repairs but still it could not work. Finally the machine was taken by the appellant for carrying out repairs in the first week of December 1996 and same was not returned in spite of repeated requests from the complainant. Since neither the machine was being repaired nor returned, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of the material on record directed the appellant to pay a cost of the machine along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase, i.e., 20th Sept., 1996 along wi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
