Back
A. NIBEDITA DEVI, M. PEMILA, N. BANIKUMAR SINGH
Department of Postal – Appellant
Versus
Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem – Respondent
JUDGMENT
N. Banikumar Singh, Member.—This First Appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the Order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission), Bishnupur (Herein after referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 1 of 2021.
2. The Complainant who is the present Respondent sent a parcel containing Shirts, shoes, sporting apparels and other items from Margaon to his home at Moirang on 21.04.2021, through Post Office vide receipt of Pt No. CM693800838IN and CM693800855IN. On 28.05.2031 he was communicated by the concern postal authority that the said parcels was found in less weight and torn condition. Thereafter, the said parcels was opened in presence of the father of the Complainant at Moirang Post Office SO and found many valuable articles missing and Complainant lodged complaint in that regard to the concern Post Office authority but with no positive result thereof. Hence, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint Case No. 1 of 2021 claiming reliefs thereof.
3. The District Commission passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 ordering the Opposite Parties n
Scope of second appeal is limited and same can only be entertained if it involves a substantial question of law.
Evidence on record – In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commis....
(1) Additional alternative remedy - It is well-settled that the additional alternative remedy provided to the ‘consumer’ vide section 3 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to seek remedy fo....
(1) Repeal of law – The repeal of a law shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment i.e. the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall continue for cases which had been filed....
Appeal – Limitation – Object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Fora.
Limitation - the complaint is filed in violation of the statutory period of two years as provided under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the same is barred by law of limitation.
If bonafide reason is found for non-appearance before Distt. Commission, proceedings can be reinstated with discretion of the State Commission
Sufficient Cause – Sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant must satisfy the Court that he was....
Writ petitions against District Consumer Redressal orders are not maintainable when an alternative remedy under the Consumer Protection Act exists, reinforcing the need to follow statutory appeal pro....
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
