Amit Kumar Jha Vs. Connectors and Another. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1112234
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided OnJan-08-2007
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 1079 of 2006
JudgeJ.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT & MAHESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
AppellantAmit Kumar Jha
RespondentConnectors 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.
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.