West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/47/2010

M/S S. H. Mumtazuddin Times (P) Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reema Maitra. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. T.B. Hazra, (Agent). Mr. Sandip Kumar Dubey.

20 May 2010

ORDER


31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
FA No: 47 Of 2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 24/12/2009 in Case No. 853/2009 of District Kolkata DF, Unit-2)
1. M/S S. H. Mumtazuddin Times (P) Ltd.4, Radhabazar Street, Kolkata- 700001. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Reema Maitra.Flat no. 04, EE-67 , Salt Lake, Sector-III, PS. Bidhannagar (East)Kolkata- 700091. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER Member
PRESENT :Mr. T.B. Hazra, (Agent). Mr. Sandip Kumar Dubey., Advocate for the Appellant 1 Inperson., Advocate for the Respondent 1

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.

ORDER

No. 5/20.05.2010.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Appellant through Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dubey, authorized representative and Respondent in person are present.  Appellant files letter of authority.  Both sides file BNA.  Appellant is represented by authorized representative and files Written submission of the Appellant through the said authorized representative.  The Respondent appears in person and files her Brief Notes of Argument.  We have perused the impugned order as also the papers available with the memo of appeal.  The Forum has taken into consideration the fact that the Complainant has substantiated her claim filing an Affidavit in support of the statements made in the complaint.  The Complainant also filed documents regarding purchase of the article in question.  Forum has also taken notice of the fact that O.P. though filed reply but neither the same is supported by any Affidavit nor any independent document has been produced in support of the contention of the O.P.  In the circumstance finding of the Forum appears to be correct and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.  Documents filed by the Appellant in the present appeal today contained the contention of the Appellant regarding the order impugned herein.  As regard award of cost of Rs.1,000/- the contention of the Appellant is considered and as we do not find any substance no interference is found required.  In respect of the direction to refund of the purchase money the contention of the Appellant is considered but in absence of any material in support of such contention either in the Forum on Affidavit or on original document the said contention on merit cannot be accepted.  As regards award of compensation we find the compensation awarded is higher than the reasonable compensation over and above the direction for payment of refund of Rs.4,895/-.  In the circumstance the compensation directed by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.3,000/- and the impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent.  Only reducing the compensation amount rest of the direction of the Forum stands.  Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 20 May 2010

[HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI]PRESIDENT[MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]Member