SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
APPEAL NO. 524 OF 2007
 
(Against the Order dated 27/07/2007 in Complaint No. 76/1999 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. GODREJ PHOTO ME LTD.
MANAGING DIRECTOR , WESTERN REGIONAL & HEAD OFFICE,
II ND FLOOR, GODREJ SOAPS, H.O. BUILDING, GODREJ
MUMBAI - 400 079
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. SMT. SUSHMA MADAN & ANR.
W/O SHRI VIJAY MADAN, ASHIRWAD COLOUR LAB,
14, FIRST FLOOR, HARE KRISHNA COMPLEX, 10 NO.BUS
BHOPAL
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Mr.Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 31 Oct 2012
ORDER

State Commission allowed the complaint, inter alia, relying upon its own decisions in C.C. No.23/1996 (Prachi Colour Lab vs. Godrej & Kis Ltd.) decided on 11.9.2002 and C.C. No.17/1999 (Sanjeev Borana vs. Godrej & Kis Ltd.) decided on 5.4.2004.  Facts in those cases were similar to the present case.  Product in question in the present case and in those cases and the manufacturing defects pointed out were also same/similar.  Appellant was the opp.party in those cases as well. 

Against the decision of the State Commission in those cases, appellant filed F.A. No.203/2004 and 73/2005.  Those appeals were disposed of by a Bench of this Commission on 7.7.2009.  Since the facts of the present case are same/similar to the facts involved in those cases, this appeal is also disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Commission in FAs No.203/2004 and 73/2005 dated 7.7.2009 and the amount payable is reduced to Rs.2 lakh.

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top