STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 365 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 26.08.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 23.10.2013 |
1.
2.
Both residents of House No.624, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana.
…..Appellants/Complainants.
Versus
1.
2.
……Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by:Sh. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for the appellants.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. The Counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that the AC was installed by the Opposite Parties/Company Engineer on 25.04.2012, when the electricity supply was not available. It was further submitted that the Engineer just installed the Air-conditioner and left the premises without checking as to whether it was in working condition. It was further submitted that since the date of installation, there had been noise in the Air Conditioner. Despite repeated complaints lodged with the Opposite Parties, no action was taken to make the same in working condition. It was further submitted that the respondents/Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service.
9.
10. The purchase of the Air-conditioner by the appellant at the price of Rs.32,000/- vide cash invoice
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Pronounced.
23rd
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
AD
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.365 of 2013)
Argued by:Sh. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for the appellants.
Dated the 23rd
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/complainants has been dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order passed by the District Forum has been upheld.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| |
| [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] |
| PRESIDENT |
| |
| [HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ] |
| MEMBER |
