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

DINESH SINGH, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
Babu Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Subhash Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate with Ms. Yashodhara Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Nemo

ORDER

1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 22.09.2010 of the State Commission in appeal no. 612 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 28.09.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 295 of 2007.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘transport co.’) and have perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 28.09.2007 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 22.09.2010 of the State Commission and the petition. No one appears for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’).

3. The matter relates to the transport co. not transporting and delivering the household articles and car of the complainant even after receiving the full charges therefor and detaining them unlawfully.

Proved facts, as evinced by concurrent findings of the two fora below, are that the complainant booked his household articles and car for transportation from Pune to Patna with the transport co. He issued a cheque of Rs. 64,450/- towards the total charges (i.e. consideration) therefor. He was made to understand th

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