Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Naresh Katyal, J, S.C. Kaushik, M
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Saurabh Rao – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observations on the evidence and the appellants' claims. (Para 2 , 5 , 9) |
| 2. facts of the case involve a complaint regarding a fake product. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides regarding the order's legality. (Para 8) |
| 4. court's reasoning on the failure of the appellants to prove their case. (Para 10) |
| 5. final conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
There is delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal. To condone it, an application has been filed, duly supported by affidavit. Delay in filing of this appeal stands condoned, as reasons specified in application and accompany affidavit do constitute sufficient cause.
2. Challenge in this Appeal No.1331 of 2017 has been invited by appellants/OPs No. 2 & 3 against order dated 19.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Rewari (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.259 of 2016, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.
3. Factual matrix: Complainant ordered Samsung Power Bank 16800 Mah on 31.05.2016 from OP No. 1. It was delivered to him by OP No. 1 and he paid Rs.548/- includ
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
