Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. VISWANATH, PM, SUBHASH CHANDRA, M
SOUDHARYA JEWLLERS – Appellant
Versus
PAIDI JAGANADHA RAO – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case and the complaint regarding the sale of gold ornaments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. district forum's order and the appeal filed against it. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations regarding the delay in filing the appeal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal principles regarding condonation of delay and relevant case law. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. final decision of the court dismissing the revision petition. (Para 12) |
PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA
This revision petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the judgment dated 06.01.2016 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 931 of 2015 and FA no. 2385 of 2015.
2. The facts stated by the petitioner in brief, are that the respondent/ complainant had purchased 65.330 grams of gold 916 gold for an amount of Rs.1,84,677/- on 14.05.2014 from the petitioner/ opposite party. The respondent/ complainant had paid an advance of Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner/ opposite party agreed to make a necklace weighing 23.330 grams with loss of weight 2.800 and Nalla Pusalu chain. The petitioner agreed to make
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
