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

DIPA SEN (MAITY), SUBHRA SANKAR BHATTA
Puranjan Maiti – Appellant
Versus
Chief Administrative Officer – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Binoy Ch. Dhara, Mr. B.K. Metya, Advocates

ORDER

Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Judicial Member—The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed at the behest of the Appellant viz. Puranjan Maiti who was the Complainant before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (hereinafter referred to “as the District Commission” for short) challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the District Commission in connection with Consumer complaint case no. CC/224/2018 wherein and whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to dismiss the petition of complaint on contest against the OPs and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

2. Appellant, Sri Puranjan Maiti as Complainant instituted the petition of complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs/Respondents herein viz. 1) The Chief Administrative Officer, 2) The Chairman and 3) The Branch Manager, all of Tamluk Cooperative Agriculture Rural Development Bank Limited, Post and P.S. - Tamluk, District-Purba Medinipur and prayed for redressal as sought for in the prayer portion of the complaint.

3. Case of the Complainant in a nutshell, is that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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