Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA
Bimalkumar Bhattacharya – Appellant
Versus
Thomas Cook (India) Limited – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 51/2019 dated 02.07.2019 dismissing the appeal against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No.541 of 2016 dated 05.01.2019.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner approached the respondent who is in the travel and tourism business to book a tour to Europe, including sight-seeing trip in London in 2015. He booked a sightseeing tour in London for one person on 26th & 27th August, 2015 and for two persons on 29th August, 2015 and a holiday package for Europe of 14 nights and 15 days from 30th August 2015 to 13th September, 2015 through the respondent at a cost of Rs 5,94,232/- which was paid in installments by cheques. It is averred by the petitioner that the petitioner had also paid £90 for booking file for European tour. The petitioner alleged that while he had asked for a package tour for one person for sightseeing in London on 26th and 27th August 2015, the respondent booked for two persons. The petitioner alleged
(1) Two Interpretations – It is a settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings canno....
Concurrent findings of lower fora on factual matters are binding unless proven perverse; revisional jurisdiction is limited and should not re-evaluate evidence.
The jurisdiction of the National Commission under S.21(b) is limited and cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact without a jurisdictional error.
National Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate evidence on record when findings of lower Fora are concurrent on facts.
1) Petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce new evidence at the revisional stag.2) Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, ....
(1) Assess and re-appreciate the evidence - Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and....
Revisional jurisdiction - The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional j....
“Entire loan amount if paid title document as pledged has to be released.”
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, delineates the distinct roles of revisions and appeals, with revisions not applicable to final orders of the District Forum, which must be appealed under Section 41....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
