NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2845/2009

RAM BAHADUR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANJITA BAJAJ ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

02 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2845 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 08/05/2009 in Appeal No. 468/2008 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. RAM BAHADUR SINGHS/o. Late Shri Chotu Singh Pro. Laxmi Enterprises BabuPura Adarsh Nagar Ajmer Rajasthan ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ANJITA BAJAJ ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.Manager Anjita Enterprie Pvt . Ltd. Jaipur Road. Ajmer Rajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 02 Aug 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.

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate (Amicus-curiae)For the Respondent : N E M O

Dated, the 2nd day of August, 2010

ORDER

No one appears for the respondent though notice was sent on 12.04.10 which has not been received back unserved. Respondent is, therefore, proceeded ex parte. We have heard Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate who was appointed amicus curiae to assist this Commission in the matter. The only grievance made out by the petitioner was that the bike which he purchased did not come up to its expectation inasmuch as it fell short of the proclamation brought out by the respondent in regard to the optimum mileage of the bike in question, viz., 101 Kms. per litre of ..2.. petrol. The said proclamation might be under the ideal conditions and for the brand new vehicle. In the case in hand, the bike had been driven more than one year and even then it had given an average of more than 88 Kms. per litre of petrol. In view of this, we do not consider it a case for either deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.



......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................SURESH CHANDRAMEMBER