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

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, ANIL SRIVASTAVA
Rajiv Nanda – Appellant
Versus
Supertech Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Puneet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Ms. Shivani Aggarwal, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party and have prayed the following reliefs:

(a) Refund of sum of Rs.25, 37,068/- [Rupees Twenty Five lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Sixty Eight only) deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Party; and

(b) payment of interest @ 18 % p.a. over the deposited amount i.e. Rs.25,37,068/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Sixty Eight only) w.e.f. 14.12.2013 till refund of deposited amount to the complainant; and

(c) payment of sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Only) by opposite party on account of mental harassment & agony caused to the complainant and on account of compensation for deficiency in services rendered by the opposite party and on account of Unfair Trade Practice adopted by the opposite party towards the complainant; and

(d) payment of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees One Lakh Only) by Opposite Party as cost of the proceedings/litigation to the complainant; and

(e) any other relief which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in the interest

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