DINESH SINGH, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.10.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1098 of 2010 arising out of the Order dated 29.08.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 335 of 2008.
2. On the last occasion this case was taken up i.e. on 03.06.2022, enough time was spent in hearing the complainant in person who was simply unable to render any meaningful assistance. He also submitted that because of his pecuniary condition he was unable to afford the fee of an advocate and beseeched that legal aid may be provided to him. Having regard to the facts and specificities of the matter and the implications involved, Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, learned advocate was requested to appear as amicus curiae to represent the complainant.
3. We have heard the learned amicus curiae for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the bank (the respondents herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 29.08.2008 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.10.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.
4. Briefly, on 06.07.2005
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Ors. vs. Director Health Services Haryana and Ors.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Bhavani
Bank of Baroda vs. S K. Kool (Dead) Through Legal Representative and Anr.
Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs. Shree Lal Meena
(1) Gratuity - As far as gratuity is concerned, it is undisputedly a service matter and as such it is not within the purview of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.(2) Terminal benefits - The complaint....
Service disputes of public sector employees are beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
(1) Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretation of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisd....
Right to Get Redressal - Respondent No.1/Complainant has a right to get redressal in this Commission for deficiency on the party of the Petitioners, who had denied him the pensionary benefit for cert....
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order pass....
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order pass....
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act “Consumer” means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any syst....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.