SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.N.KAPOOR, B.K.TAIMNI
Nagar Panchayat Naraini – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumari – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Mona Rajvanshi and Mr. Anurag Kishore, Advocates.

ORDER

B.K. Taimni, Member—The petitioner was the opposite party before the District. Forum, where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

2. Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the petitioner being a Nagar Panchayat, to the general public announced through a general announcement (Munadi) that they are going to develop land for commercial work for which Rs.2,000 was to be deposited, another Rs.10,000, was required to be deposited for repairing the nala, levelling of the land, filling the soil etc., which was non-refundable. In response to this announcement, the respondents/complainants deposited Rs.12,000 with the petitioner. But when the allotment was not forthcoming, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. Petitioner did not file any reply as per Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, before the District Forum. Only preliminary objection was filed, which reads as under:

“1. That the opposite party keeping its right protected from filing its written statement submit the preliminary objection.

2. That between the complainant and opposite party there is no relation of consumer becaus


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top