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

B.C.GUPTA, S.M.KANTIKAR
Municipality, Gajsinghpur – Appellant
Versus
Kamaljeet – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.05.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 321/2016, “Kamaljeet & Ors. versus Municipality, Gajsinghpur”, vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the District Forum Sriganganagar in consumer complaint No. 59/M/2015, was set aside. The District Forum vide said order had concluded that the charge under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for non-implementation of the orders of the Consumer Fora against the opposite party was not made out. The State Commission, however, allowed the appeal and held that the complainants were free to initiate proceedings against the OPs under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant, Tulsidass had made application on 07.05.1985 to the opposite party (OP), Municipality, Gajsinghpur for allotment of a plot under weaker income group, whereupon Plot No. 6DE was allotted to him. The lease amount






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