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

R.K.AGRAWAL
Baliram Laxman Patil – Appellant
Versus
Common Wealth Sales Corporation – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Nemo
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Siddharth Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3: Exparte vide Order dated 17.11.2015

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Impugned Order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal Nos. A/10/616 and A/10/806, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal No. A/10/616 filed by Mr. Baliram Laxman Patil (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) and allowed the Appeal No. A/10/806 filed by the Commonwealth Sales Corporation Panvel and Mr. Rajendra Mhatre (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 respectively) by setting aside the Order dated 26.05.2010 passed in Complaint No. 07/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (for short “the District Forum”) vide which the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @8% p.a. from the date of Order towards Compensation. The Opposite Party No.1 was also directed to pay R

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