ARVIND KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. K.K. ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant.

(2.) Briefly put the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had obtained a V.C.R. from the respondent on replacement basis which according to him did not work well and when after repeated requests and correspondence, the respondent did not carry out the repair within the warranty period, he approached the District Forum who after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint. The appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant before the State Commission was also dismissed, hence the revision petition.

(3.) It was argued by the petitioner that he is an educated unemployed and had taken a loan for purchase of V.C.R. and was using it for making his livelihood from new V.C.R. supplied by the respondent which has not been working well and he only wants it to be repaired by the respondent as it was within the warranty period. His not doing so is deficiency in service. Respondent should be directed to carry out the repairs and order of the lower Fora should be set aside.