NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1536/2006

M/S. NEW BHANDARI HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. LOGICSTAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. UPDIP SINGH

05 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1536 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 13/04/2005 in Appeal No. 1354/2005 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. M/S. NEW BHANDARI HOSPITAL- ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M/S. LOGICSTAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.- ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. UPDIP SINGH
For the Respondent :MR. SANJIV SHARMA

Dated : 05 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.

This order shall dispose of both the above mentioned Revision Petitions.

          Complainant/petitioner had purchased six Servo Controlled Voltage Stabilizers Automatic with automatic power cut device from the respondent in the year 1994.  According to the petitioner, the stabilizers supplied were defective and in spite of repeated requests, the respondent did not repair them and make them operational.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,53,004/- with freight charges of Rs.3,270/- with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of purchase till day of payment.  The petitioner was directed to return the transformers after receipt of the amount.


-3-

          Respondent as well as the petitioner filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  The respondent filed the appeal for setting aside the order the order of the District Forum whereas the petitioner filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.    The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.  The order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. 

Complainant being aggrieved has filed the present Revision Petitions.

          Counsel for the parties state that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.  Respondent has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lacs to the petitioner in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties within three weeks from today.  Petitioner has agreed to accept the sum of Rs.2 Lacs in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties.

          In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, we direct the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.2 Lacs to the petitioner


-4-

within three weeks which shall be in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties.  Complainant/petitioner is directed to despatch the defective transformers to the respondent (at respondent’s costs) within one week of the receipt of the sum of         Rs.2 Lacs.

          The Revision Petitions stand disposed of in above terms.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER