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

AVM J. RAJENDRA
Jahir Khan – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Leyland – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate with Petitioner in Person
For the Respondent:Mr. Suresh Tripathy and Ms. Shailja, Advocates

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section-21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 26.03.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. FA/2016/26 & FA/2016/33, wherein the Appeals filed by the Respondents/ OPs was partly allowed and setting aside the Order dated 07.01.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 332/2013.

2. There was 93 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA No. 9603/2016, the delay is condoned.

3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief relevant facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant purchased a new vehicle - ‘Dost LS BSLLL FSD Light Blue’, Regn No. CG-07-ACA-6397 from OP-2 who is an authorized agent/dealer of OP-1, the manufacturer, on 23.01.2012 for Rs.5,20,000/-. To finance this, he arranged funds by mortgaging personal assets, including a loan from M/s. Shre

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