Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. CMC Ltd., Respondents Hyderabad  

2. M/s Dayaram Metharam Marketing, Hyderabad (Proforma)   BEFORE   HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER   HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER   For the Appellants Mr. S. S. Ray, Advocate Ms Rakhi Ray, Advocate   For Respondent No. 1 Mr. Shraman Sinha, Advocate   Dated the 21st April, 2008   ORDER     ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER   This is a first appeal against the Order dated 03.11.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (the State Commission) in consumer complaint no. 113 of 1999. By the said Order, the State Commission allowed the complaint of the CMC Ltd. (answering respondent in this appeal; hereafter CMC) and directed the appellants (and respondent no. 2 herein) to pay to CMC

Ltd. [(2000) 1 SCC 515].

(ii) As averred in the counter affidavit dated 29.02.2000 of Shri Shashank Jain, Managing Director, Viewtech Imaging Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (first appellant here), CMC took delivery of the projector only after satisfying itself with the working condition of the LCD projector and the equipment was with CMC and being used by it.

(iii) The appellants, in any case, attended to the complaint of CMC regarding non-functioning of the projector as soon as the latter was sent to their notice; carried out the necessary repairs; disclosed candidly the reasons for delay in repairs by their letter dated 10.05.1999; and returned the projector to CMC as soon as it was repaired satisfactorily. Hence there was no case of deficiency in service, as alleged.