NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1404/2011

M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF JEWELLERY (NOW KNOWN S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF JEWELLERY, A DIVISION OF MODERN INDIA LTD.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHAN R. DIXIT - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. BHASIN & CO.

19 May 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1404 OF 2011

(Against the Order dated 14/01/2011 in Appeal No. 913/2009 of the State Commission Maharastra)

1. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF JEWELLERY (NOW KNOWN S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF JEWELLERY, A DIVISION OF MODERN INDIA LTD.) Modern Center, Sane Guruji Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai - 400011 Maharashtra	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MOHAN R. DIXIT Parvati Niwas, Ghantali Devi Chowk, Chhatrapatti Shivaji Marg, Navpada Thane - 400602 Maharashtra	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. S. K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate Mr. Ravi Gopal, Advocate

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 19 May 2011

ORDER

Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 14.1.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal No.A/09/913. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 21.03.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.298 of 2008. The District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/ opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.34,000/- received by them as the training fee to the complainant and also pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.125/- as the cost of the proceedings. In appeal, the State Commission has substantially modified the order passed by the District Forum inasmuch as the direction to pay back the fee of Rs.34,000/- was waived of and the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. We have heard Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. We are informed that in compliance with the directions given by the State Commission, the petitioner has already paid the amount to the complainant. In this way, the question remains of academic interest only or to say that whether such an order can form a precedent. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the submissions made by Mr. Bhasin as to whether the petitioner is guilty of adopting unfair trade practice by issuing advertisement in question. We dismiss this petition leaving the question to be answered in some better case.

......................J

R. C. JAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

S. K. NAIK

MEMBER