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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1429 OF 2016
 
(Against the Order dated 06/01/2016 in Appeal No. 931/2015 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. SOUDHARYA JEWLLERS
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, B. SHANMUKHA RAO, S/O VISWANADHAM, PETROMAX STREET, TOWN AND
DISTRICT-SRIKAKULAM
ANDHRA PRADESH
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. PAIDI JAGANADHA RAO
S/O SATYANARAYANA C/O ADINARAYANA, DOOR NO. 2-132, KINTHALIMILL VILLAGE S.M. PURAM POST, ETCHERLA MANDAL,
DISTRICT-SRIKAKULAM
ANDHRA PRADESH
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr V Sridhar Reddy, Advocate with
Mr P Mohan Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr Y Rajagopala Rao, Advocate with
Mr Korada Pramod Kumar, Mr Dhuli
Gopi Krishna, Advocates

Dated : 26 Dec 2022
ORDER

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 the said items within one and a half months and, in the meantime, the respondent/ complainant was to pay the balance amount to the petitioner/ opposite party.  The respondent/ complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.46,677/- as still unpaid. Respondent approached the petitioner numerous times for completing the jewellery. However, the petitioner did not prepare the ornaments even though the respondent is ready to pay the balance amount.  The respondent has alleged that neither the ornaments have been delivered nor the money been refunded to the respondent/ complainant.

3.     A complaint was therefore, filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srikakulam (in short, ‘the District Forum’)  by the respondent herein with the following prayer:

  1. Direct the Soundharya Jewellers to either deliver the gold ornaments on receipt of balance amount or to repay the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest 24% per annum from 01.07.2014 till the date of payment;
  1. Direct the Soundharya Jewellers to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony plus Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

4.     The District Forum vide its order dated 30.03.2015 allowed the complaint and ordered as under;

“In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to deliver the gold ornaments weight of 65.330 grams of 916 purity (neckless and nalla pusalu with locket) on receipt of balance amount of Rs.46,677/- or to repay the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment within one month to the complainant or else, the complainant is entitled to get the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation ofRs.40,000/- within one month, towards mental agony, pain and sufferings, with litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- in which Rs.1000/- is included as Advocate fee.”

5.     Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal was filed with a delay of 177 days. The State Commission after hearing the counsels for the parties on the condonation of delay dismissed the appeal observing as under:

“In the light of the

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