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

AJIT BHARIHOKE
V. Satish Kanniah – Appellant
Versus
Vijayalaxmi M. Sultanpuri – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Raja Venkatappa Naik, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Karnataka dated 05.01.2007 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent complainant, set aside the order of the District Forum and ordered as under:

“14. In the result, we pass the following order:

(1) The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

(2) The complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum is allowed in part.

(3) The OP is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within two months from today. In the event if the OP fails to pay the said amount to the complainant within the stipulated period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of complaint filed before the District Forum till the date of realisation.

(4) The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards the costs of these proceedings.”

2. Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum alleging that in September 2000, the complainant approached the opposite party for treatment











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