Punjab

Kapurthala

CC/07/199

Rakesh Thukral - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nanda electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

12 Feb 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA
Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/199

Rakesh Thukral
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Nanda electronics
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. A.K.SHARMA 2. Surinder Mittal

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Dr.Rakesh Thukral against opposite parties i.e. Nandha Electronics Centre Jaggi Market, Kapurthala and Voltas Limited Unitary Products Business Group to claim compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in replacement of the remote of the Air Conditioner. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant bought an Air conditioner (A.C.) 1.5 Ton, Premium Model with Remote from Nandha Electronics, Jaggi Market, Kapurthala on dated 24/8/07 vide bill. It is further alleged that remote was not working from the first day of its purchase and dealer was duly notified about this defect. Consequently the dealer took the remote and kept with him for two weeks but still it was not working and the dealer was again informed about its defect. He again visited the shop of opposite party with request for twenty times to replace the old remote with a new one but in vain. Opposite party was duty bound to replace the defective remote with the new one under the guarantee and warranty liabilities for which he is entitled to compensation. 3. Opposite parties failed to appear despite service and as such were proceeded exparte on 7/2/07 and 27/11/07 respectively. 4. Complainant in support of his version produced in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C4. 5. We have heard complainant in person and perused the documents on the record. The letter dated 8/10/07 Ex.C3 clinches the matter as it clearly highlights woeful deficiency in service regarding the replacement of defective remote of A.C. in question from the date of purchase i.e. 24/8/07. No doubt opposite party replaced the remote of A.C. in question only on 11/10/07 vide Ex.C4 but the complainant was definitely subjected to inconvenience, mental agony on account of deiciency in service for immediate replacement of the remote. Therefore, we find merit in this complaint and pass exparte order directing both the parties to pay compensation of amount of Rs.2000/- jointly and severally for deficiency in service alongwith Rs.500/- as cost of litigation within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order otherwise it be recovered in accordance with law. Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room. Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma ) 12.2.2008 Member President.




......................A.K.SHARMA
......................Surinder Mittal