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

S.B.MHASE, S.R.KHANZODE, NARENDRA KAWDE
Navnit Dhirja Lal Seth – Appellant
Versus
Nitin N. Mehta – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant No.1: In person
For the Respondent: None.

ORDER (ORAL)

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













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