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

B.S.INDRAKALA, G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI
BRINDAVAN ELECTRICALS – Appellant
Versus
SHIVABASAV – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.B. Hebballi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. JNN, Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

Mrs. Justice B.S. Indrakala, President - The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.3.2012 passed in C.C. No. 120/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bagalkot.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to by their respective rank as arrayed before the District Forum.

3. The complainant lodged the complaint alleging that he purchased an electrical item by name 6 m.m. Model Metal Box and on the advice of the OP he purchased G.M. Modular Company brand by paying Rs. 114. On the same day complainant noticed the MRP on the cover was written as Rs. 90 and Rs. 10 excess was collected by the OP. On the same day he enquired about the excess collection of Rs. 10 and also about Vat of Rs. 14, but the OP rejected the request of the complainant, he informed the customer care of GM Modular Company about the incident; in the circumstances, he sought awarding of Rs. 30,000 against OP for unfair trade practice and Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards cost.

4. In the version filed by OP amongst other pleas it is pleaded that the OP being the dealer for Anchor articles exclusively dealing with the products of Anchor Company

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