Amit Kumar Jha Vs. Connectors and Another.

Amit Kumar Jha vs Connectors and Another.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Jan 08, 2007

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1112234

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1112234
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge: J.D. Kapoor, President &Amp; Mahesh Chandra, Member
Decided On: Jan 08, 2007
Case Number: First Appeal No. 1079 of 2006
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 15 - Comparative Citation: 2007 (1) CPJ 463

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amit Kumar Jha

Respondent

Connectors and Another.

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 15 - comparative citation: 2007 (1) cpj 463j.d. kapoor, president: 1. on account of having been sold defective mobile handset, the respondents have been vide impugned order dated 4.9.2006 passed by the district forum, directed to replace the set with new packed set of nokia with fresh warranty of one year and also to pay rs. 5,000 as compensation and rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. 2. appellant is still dissatisfied with this order and has preferred this appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986. 3. it appears that the main grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order has not been complied with by the respondents so far. this grievance can be remedied by directing the appellant to file application under section s 25/27 of the consumer protection act, 1986 for implementation of the order. even otherwise, the appellant has been adequately compensated besides replacement of handset purchased by him with a new handset. 4. there is no merit in appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. 5. a copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the district forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. appeal dismissed.

Full Judgment

J.D. Kapoor, President:

1. On account of having been sold defective mobile handset, the respondents have been vide impugned order dated 4.9.2006 passed by the District Forum, directed to replace the set with new packed set of Nokia with fresh warranty of one year and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

2. Appellant is still dissatisfied with this order and has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. It appears that the main grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order has not been complied with by the respondents so far. This grievance can be remedied by directing the appellant to file application under Section s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for implementation of the order. Even otherwise, the appellant has been adequately compensated besides replacement of handset purchased by him with a new handset.

4. There is no merit in appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.

5. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New ... Same Parties Amit Kumar Jha vs Connectors and Another. Same Subject MRTP Same Judge J.D. Kapoor, President &Amp; Mahesh Chandra, Member

MRTP