Back
INDER JIT SINGH
Bata India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Parshad Raturi – Respondent
ORDER
These two Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 22.07.2019 in RP/1715/2019 and 19.06.2020 in RP/774/2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh and Tripura respectively (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission, Chandigarh and State Commission, Tripura), in First Appeal (FA) No. 98 of 2019 (RP/1715/2019) and First Appeal (FA) No. A.4 of 2020 (RP/774/2020) in which order dated 09.04.2019 (RP/1715/2019) and 16.01.2020 (RP/774/2020) of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh and Agartala respectively (hereinafter referred to as District Forum, Chandigarh and District Forum, Agartala) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 64 of 2019 (RP/1715/2019) and Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 34 of 2019 (RP/774/2020) were challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 22.07.2019 and 19.06.2020 respectively of the State Commission, Chandigarh and Tripura and order dated 09.04.2019 and 16.01.2020 respectively of the District Forum, Chandigarh and Agartal.
2. The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also ref
(1) Carry bag – If the Opposite Party claims itself to be responsible and environmentally conscious, then they should have given the carry bags to the customers free of cost because in the considered....
1) Considered view that the Complaint filed u/s 12(1)(c) by the Complainant as Joint Complaint on behalf of similar situated Consumers not maintainable.2) Amply clear that punitive damages u/s 14(1)(....
(1) Commercial purpose – To determine whether goods purchased by a person (which would include a legal entity like a company) were for a commercial purpose or not, within definition of a “consumer” a....
Cause of action if a continuous one in nature, complaint cannot be barred on ground of limitation.”
1. Complainant no.1 is ‘consumer’ and complainant no.2 is beneficiary of Complainant no.1; they are entitled to get this amt. from opponents as Opponents indulged in deficiency of service.
Endorsers cannot be held liable for unfair trade practices without direct involvement in the service transaction, as established under the Consumer Protection Act.
Section 10 of the Carriers Act requires notice of loss but does not apply to non-delivery claims; payment of freight does not negate liability for lost goods.
The transporter is liable for damages due to non-delivery of goods as per the contractual agreement, when delivered without obtaining necessary lorry receipts.
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
