AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 268 wordsSINCE the appellant is appearing in person we have heard him as also have carefully gone through the record and proceedings.
THE appellant herein is the original complainant, who got Xerox machine for which respondent No. 1 - original opponent No. 2 arranged for finance. Respondent No. 2 is original opponent No. 1 is a manufacturer/supplier of the machine. There was some defect in the machine and complainant found its performance unsatisfactory and hence the complaint.
District Forum, on consideration of the case of the complainant, ordered the respondent No. 2 the supplier/manufacturer to repair the machine and set it in proper order. The District Forum also ordered the respondent No. 2 to refund the amount to the complainant towards the price of the Drum plus Rs. 3,000/- (in words rupees three thousand only) towards the loss.
DESPITE this, the appellant has approached this Commission in the appeal. The appellant stated that the respondent No. 1 has been wrongly left off. However, that does not appeal to the reason. They i.e. respondent No. 1 being the financial institute cannot be held responsible for manufacturing defects in the machine for which Forum has already held manufacturer, respondent No. 2, accountable.
BY and large, we notice that the order of the District Forum, which is in favour of the appellant, is just and reasonable. However, the appellant, for the reasons best known to him, instead of taking steps for the execution of the said order, has approached this Commission in appeal. We do not find any merit in the matter. The same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.