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

R.K.AGRAWAL, M.SHREESHA
Indigo Airlines – Appellant
Versus
Aastha Pansari – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajit Warrier and Mr. Tanishq Panwar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Umesh Nagpal, Advocate

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2017, in Appeal No. 1481 of 2016 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”), Indigo Airlines (hereinafter referred to as “the Airlines”) has preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant and set aside the order dated 24.10.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III (for short “the District Forum”) vide which the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint.

2. Briefly stated, the facts in the instant case are that the Complainant’s marriage was fixed for 06.12.2009, but she had got the marriage date extended to 16.02.2010, enable her to make purchases of her choice with respect to ornaments, sarees, garments etc. and got married, at Hotel Clark Aamer, Jaipur. It is averred that three days subsequent to the marriage on 19.02.2010, the Complainant with her husband and other relatives

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