NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3870/2009

ROCHIES TIME SHOP - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJAY SINGH & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

03 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 27 Mar 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3870/2009
(Against the Order dated 01/10/2008 in Appeal No. 2643/2007 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. ROCHIES TIME SHOPDayamandir Road,MandsaurM.P2. MS. ROHMA HAMEEDAdvocate, 34, Babar Lane, 1st Floor, Bangali MarketNew Delhi-110001 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. AJAY SINGH & ANR.Near, Charbhuja Stone, Sanjeet Naka,MandsaurM.P ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

Despite notice sent to Ms. Rohma Hameed, amicus curiae on 4.1.2010, she is not present.
          We have ourselves gone through the two orders passed by fora below. Particularly the order of State Commission would show that the mobile handset was purchased by the respondent/complainant on 14.6.2006 and warranty of one year was given by the petitioner/opposite party. Order would further show that handset developed certain defects which the petitioner did not rectify despite service of notice dated 7.6.2007 by the respondent. In this backdrop, petitioner was held deficient in
 
 
- 2-
service and order was made for refund of price of Rs.2400/- with interest @ 6% per annum till realization. Payment was subject to return of the handset to the petitioner. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER