SR IMAYANK PODDAR & ORS. V/S SRI SATYANARAYAN ADHIKARI - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/3169/2009

SRI SATYANARAYAN ADHIKARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SR IMAYANK PODDAR & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. KALI CHANRAN DASS ASSOCIATES

05 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 25 Aug 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3169/2009
(Against the Order dated 16/04/2009 in Appeal No. 322/2009 of the State Commission Orissa)

1. SRI SATYANARAYAN ADHIKARIS/o.Sri Durga Prasad Adhikari Baxi Street At. Po/Ps. Parlakhemundi Gajapati -761200						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. SR IMAYANK PODDAR & ORS.Having Its Registered Office At Magma House Magma Leasing Ltd. 24, Park Steet Kolkata -7600162. G.P. PATTANAIKBusiness Head East Magma House -24, Park Street Kolkata -7000163. BRACH MANAGER . MAGMA LEASING LIMITED . Town Hall Road.Choudhury Complex at./Po. Berhampur -760001Ganjam4. BRANCH MANAGER MAGMA LEASING LTD. Nirmal Plaza Forest Park . At/Po. Bhubaneswar -751009						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER

For the Appellant :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 05 Apr 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.

In this revision challenge by the complainant is to the order dated 25.6.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack allowing appeal against the order dated 18.3.2009 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondents/ opposite parties to deliver back the possession of the vehicle in question and pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner failing which purchase price of the vehicle was to be refunded alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. by the respondents. As may be seen from the order under challenge it is solely based on the order of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. Copy of this order has been filed by the petitioner pursuant to order 22.10.2009 passed by this Commission. Complaint wherein the order by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur came to be passed, was filed for initiation of criminal proceedings under Sections 342/506/323/379/34 of the I.P.C. The District Forum passed award after returning the finding that possession of the vehicle was forcibly taken by the respondents. Having heard parties counsel, we are of the view that State Commission had acted erroneously in setting aside the Forums order solely on the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur in criminal proceedings. Scope of enquiry in both the proceedings was completely different. Order under challenge, thus, deserves to be set aside and case remanded to State Commission for appeal being decided afresh after hearing the parties. Accordingly, while allowing revision, aforesaid order dated 25.6.2009 is set aside and case is remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided afresh on merit. No order as to costs. Both the parties will appear before the State Commission for directions on 8.7.2010.

......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER