Delhi

StateCommission

FA/962/2013

S.C. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KHERATI LAL SONS (P). LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/962/2013
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/08/2013 in Case No. CC/565/2013 of District New Delhi)
 
1. S.C. SHARMA
R/O D-1/71,JANAKPURI NEW DELHI 110001
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. KHERATI LAL SONS (P). LTD.
80,JANPATH ,CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI 110001
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

 

                      Date of Decision:  4.7.2014

                                                                                           

First Appeal – 962/2013

 

 

S.C. Sharma

r/o D-1/71, Janakpuri,

New Delhi-110 058

 

 

 

     .........Appellant

VS

 

 

 

          M/s Kherati Lal Sons Pvt. Ltd.,

          Through it’s A.R.

          80, Janpath, Connaught Place,

          New Delhi-110 001

 

 

 

………...Respondent       

 

 

CORAM

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER

N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     The appeal is directed against the order dated 7.8.2014 bearing No. 565/2013, titled as S.C. Sharma Vs. Kharati Lal Sons pending before District Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi, vide which the complaint was dismissed.

 

2.                In the present appeal before this Commission,   Complainant/Appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

4.         We have heard Shri Karunesh Tandon, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself.

5.         Perusal of the order dated 17th July, 2013 passed by the District Forum shows that the orders have been passed by the single member.  The orders are hence not tenable in the eyes of law.

6.         The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the conjecture observing that fading of colour of the frame of mirrors was a frivolous complaint.  Counsel for the appellant stated that the said discolouring took place within one week of the purchase.  The cost of three mirrors was Rs.30,000/-.  Matter required adjudication.  It is hence remanded back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number and to proceed in the matter on merits.  The Appellant Complainant is directed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi on 18.07.2014.

5.         A copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance and a copy of this order be transmitted to both the parties.

 

 

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
MEMBER

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.