NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4099/2008

M/S. DRASHTI PLASTICS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. KESINENI COURIES & CARGO & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

MR. HARSHADRAI P. PATHAK

23 Oct 2008

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20 Oct 2008

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4099/2008
(Against the Order dated 09/06/2008 in Appeal No. 2167/2006 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. M/S. DRASHTI PLASTICS5th Tejpal Scheme Road 3/1, Shradha Estate Vile Parle East Mumbai-400057Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/S. KESINENI COURIES & CARGO & ANR 56-J, Jithekar Buiding Opp.Development Bank Building Carnac Road Mumbai-400003Maharashtra2. M/S.KESINENI COURIER & CAGO14-11-17/A, Atchutaramaiah Street Hanumanpet Vijayawada-520003Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Oct 2008
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.

 

          The petitioner/complainant placed an order with the respondents for supply of toys worth Rs.73,600/-. The consignment sent by the respondents was not delivered to the complainant, who being aggrieved, filed a complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.73,600/- along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
          The complainant, being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, did not challenge the order of the District Forum. The respondent, being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, filed an Appeal before the State Commission.   The complainant was present before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal by its impugned order and affirmed the order of the District Forum.      
The complainant has now filed an Appeal challenging the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. Since the complainant, being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum did not file Appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum, it is debarred from filing the Revision Petition.

            Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER