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

SUBHASH CHANDRA, J. RAJENDRA
Savitri Filling Station – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Yadav – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anoop Kumar Yadav, Advocate (VC)

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenges order dated 19.07.2017 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the “State Commission”) allowing Appeal No. 249 of 2016 and setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (in short, “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 146 of 2013 dated 19.10.2015.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us.

3. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner who is the proprietor of a petrol pump situated at Village Bochariya, SH-26, Rewari Narnaul Road, Tehsil Narnaul had entered into a contract with the respondent, who is a civil contractor, for the work of providing inter-locking tiles on 40 mm vapsi rori (kaccha flooring) at the petrol pump site within a time period of 10 days. A sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid as advance to the respondent by the petitioner on 03.04.2013, the date of the Agreement between the parties. The vapsi rori was laid but

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