H. B. M. Panth VS Askari Hussain

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUDIP AHLUWALIA
H. B. M. Panth – Appellant
Versus
Askari Hussain – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant in FA/30/2013:Ms. Anukriti Trivedi, Advocate
For the Respondent in FA/30/2013:Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arun Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Chetan Hasija, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep kapoor, advocate.
For the Appellant in FA/52/2013:Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate
For the Respondent in FA/52/2013:Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arun Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Chetan Hasija, Advocate
For the Appellant in FA/56/2013:Mr. Chetan Hasija, Advocate
For the Respondent in FA/56/2013:Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arun Upadhyay, Advocate

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—The present three Appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the impugned Order dated 04.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint No. 13 of 2006, vide which the Complaint filed by the Complainants was partly allowed.

2. These three Appeals were earlier heard by the Division Bench presiding by Hon’ble Dr. S.M Kantikar, Presiding Member and Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member. The Presiding Member had allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint. Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member had disposed off the Appeals by confirming the findings of deficiencies/Negligence arrived at by the State Commission, but had reduced the rate of interest of delay in compliance with modification in the manner of payment. The point of dissent within the Division Bench had been articulated by the aforesaid Hon’ble Members as follows:—

“Whether the Appeals be allowed and the Complaint dismissed OR Whether the Appeals be disposed of by confirming the findings of deficiency/negligence made by the State Commission, reducing the rate of interest for delay in compliance from 15% per annum to 10% per annum and modifying the mann