Back
MADRAS STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
* S. Tamilvanan (President), Thiru. K. Baskaran (Judicial Member), Tmt. Dr. S. M. Latha Maheswari (Member)
1st opposite party – Appellant
Versus
complainant – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal context and lower court's order (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. parties' claims and defenses (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's findings on service deficiency (Para 7 , 13) |
| 4. final ruling and appeal outcome (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / 1st opposite party under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 23.10.2013 in C.C. No. 107/2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Coimbatore.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to herein as they stood arrayed before the District Forum.
3. The 1st opposite party who suffered an order whereby the 1st opposite party was directed to refund a sum of Rs.68,470 collected from the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of payment; (b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service, (c) to pay a sum of Rs.1,000 towards cost of the proceedings.
4. The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party (herein after called the seller) and the second opposite party (herein after called person claiming sal
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
