S.B.MHASE, S.R.KHANZODE, NARENDRA KAWDE
Navnit Dhirja Lal Seth – Appellant
Versus
Nitin N. Mehta – Respondent
S.B. Mhase, President— Appellant No.1 in person is present. Respondent is absent. Respondent is duly served with a notice issued by this Commission. There is a report to that effect downloaded from the website of postal department, namely ‘India Post’ and, therefore, service of notice to the Respondent is declared complete under Section 28A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Heard the Appellant No.1. Perused the record.
3. This appeal filed by the Appellants/Complainants is directed as against an order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the District Forum, Mumbai Suburban District in Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2009. By the said order, the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent/Opponent to refund to the Appellants/Complainants an amount of Rs.50,000 together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a., with effect from 12.5.2008 besides costs of Rs.5,000. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the Appellants/Complainants have preferred this appeal. This appeal was admitted by the State Commission on 4.7.2012 and a notice after admission was directed to be issued to the Respondent. Accordingly, notice was .dispatched to the Respondent
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.