Case nº Revision Petition No. 1586 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 21/03/2016 in Appeal No. 195/2016 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of NCDRC Cases, May 19, 2017 (case Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. Vs Kamal Kishore Mittal & Anr.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr Lakshay Dhamija, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr H D Thanvi, Advocate |
| President | Mrs. Rekha Gupta,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | May 19, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
|
|
Order Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21.03.2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (''the State Commission'') in Appeal no. 195 of 2016. 2. The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent had purchased one LED manufactured by the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.17,500/- from respondent no. 2 - Bakshi Electromart on 23.10.2010 and one year guarantee was given. On 10.07.2015 the LED suddenly stopped playing with a great sound while playing. Complaint of the same was made with the petitioner on the toll free number. On 11.07.2015 a mechanic from the petitioner company came and on seeing the same, informed that there was a problem with the panel, and that it will take some time to get the replacement panel. The respondent has been waiting for a very long time for the repair of the LED but no one has come to repair the same. The respondent then sent a message and that the LED can only be repaired on payment of Rs.16,500/-. This was even when the LED was within the guarantee period. Therefore, the respondent filed this complaint and prayed for awarding the price of LED or to repair the LED and prayed for compensation for mental harassment and cost of the case. 3. The petitioner no. 1 -- Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd., has contested the complaint. It has been contended that the respondent had purchased the LED from respondent no. 2 -- Bakshi Electromart. On receiving the complaint on 10.07.2015, a mechanic had been sent to the respondent on 11.07.2015, who found that its panel had broken due to hitting of LED. There was no manufacturing defect in it. A small child of the respondent came in the presence of the mechanic and said that the LED has stopped functioning after being hit with a ball. Hence, it is clear that the panel of LED broke due to being hit with a ball. The mechanic had not given any guarantee... |
To continue reading
Request your trial