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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 35355

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Abhishiekh Retails India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s S.A. Trading Company – Respondent
SC/5/A/148/2022



Petitioner Advocates:Ms. Kavita Saxena ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution : 08.08.2022 Date of Final Hearing : 31.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 First Appeal No. 148 / 2022

1. Abhishek Retails India Pvt. Ltd.

Works at Plot H-9, UPSIDC Growth Center, Jamour, Shahjahanpur, UP – 242226

2. Abhishek Retails India Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office at 34, Patwa Street, Bara Bazar, Bareilly, UP – 243003

3. Abhishek Maheshwari (Managing Director) at 34, Patwa Street, Bara Bazar, Bareilly, UP – 243003 (Through: Ms. Kavita Saxena, Advocate)

…..Appellants VERSUS M/s S.A. Trading Company Through Mohd. Shamim Mohalla Chauhanan, Jawalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (Through: Sh. Chetan Jain, Advocate)

……Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against judgment and order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 181 of 2021 styled as M/s S.A. Trading Company Vs. Abhishek Retails India Pvt. Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,66,500/- alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 05.07.2021 till its actual payment with Rs. 50,000/- for compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation charges and counsel fees to the complainant.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant is the wholesale retailer of the Multi Branded Food and Beverages and has the office with the name at M/s S.A. Trading Company through Mohd. Shamim, Mohalla Chauhanan, Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. On dated 02.02.2021, the agent of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, Naushad came to the office of the complainant and told that he has joined a new company of opposite party No. 3 office at opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, which manufactured Fruit Juices and Beverages with the name of ‘Nutriraja’ and he had showed the complainant some samples products of juices and beverages, which were liked by the complainant. The complainant asked Naushad to fix an appointment with the opposite party No. 3 for further product and inquiry and order placement. But Naushad told the complainant that for appointment and meeting with opposite party No. 3, some margin money should be paid in advance for order placement. Then the complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- of Bank of Baroda, Jwalapur Branch dated 03.02.2021 to Naushad in favour of the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 as margin and advance money. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 alongwith Naushad visited the office of the complainant on dated 03.03.2021 for order placement. The complainant met with opposite party No. 3 and placed the order of Mango Juice 800 carton of 30 piece of 200 ml., Litchi Juice 200 cartoon of 30 piece of 200ml and Mango Juice 100 carton of 30 piece of 500ml. and the complainant also asked for the expected delivery date, the opposite party No. 3 said the above noted products will reach to the office of the complainant on or before 08.03.2021. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 also asked for the advance payment for the above noted products. The Complainant deposited Rs. Two Lacs through RTGS into the account of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 on dated 03.03.2021. The complainant waited for the product delivery after payment, but the product was not delivered on the promised delivery date, i.e. 08.03.2021. The complainant called on the mobile No. 9837153063 of opposite party No. 3 for product delivery inquiry, but he did not receive the call. Inspite of repeated calls, no reply was given by the opposite party No. 3. On dated 18.03.2021, the opposite party No. 3 called the complainant and said that due to some problem he was not able to dispatch the products on time and now he is dispatching the products. The products were delivered by opposite party Nos. 2 &

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 Back to top