BRIG V N CHANNA Vs. GARGYA RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), assailing the order dated 6.11.2003 passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.130/2003 entitled Brig. V. N. Channa (Retd.) V/s. M/s. Gargya Research Instruments and Anr.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant before the District Forum was that the appellant had purchased an inverter from the respondents in an exchange scheme in September 2001 and had also obtained an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC), on payment of the requisite charges. The said inverter was not functioning properly and as such the appellant had approached the respondents for having the same repaired and it was on persistent requests that the engineer of the respondent came to rectify the inverter and while attempting to repair the same, damaged the inverter, as well as, the batteries. Thereafter also the appellant's effort to have the same rectified were futile and as such the appellant approached the District Forum with the prayer that the respondents be directed to replace the inverter and the batteries or in the alternative pay Rs.25,000/- in lieu thereof, together with Rs.1 lac as damages and costs.

(3.) The defence of the respondents in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the appellant had indeed purchased an inverter in the buy-back scheme from the respondents and that the defects if any were duly rectified by the respondent through its qualified engineers and in fact it was the batteries which were defective and since the AMC did not cover the batteries the respondent had advised the appellant to have the same replaced as the same were 1 years old. It was further stated that the respondent was ready and willing to rectify the inverter and as such there being no deficiency on its part, the complaint filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed with cost.