First Appeal No. 180 / 2010. Case: Sh. Surjeet Lal Saluja S/o Sh. Nihal Chandra Saluja Vs Sh. Nagendra Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Mussadi Lal. Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 180 / 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sh. M.K. Kohli |
| Judges | B.C. Kandpal, President and Mr. C.C. Pant, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | October 07, 2011 |
| Court | Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.05.2010 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, allowing consumer complaint No. 33 of 2008 and directing the opposite party -- appellant to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 25,636/- together with interest @6% p.a. pendentelite and future within a month from the date of the order. The District Forum also directed the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses. The District Forum also directed the complainant to handover the submersible pump in dispute to the opposite party on the date of compliance of the order.
-
In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Nagendra Kumar Aggarwal had purchased a submersible pump for sum of Rs. 16,617/- vide cash memo No. 1439 dated 25.04.2007 issued by the seller Sh. Surjeet Lal Saluja, Proprietor of National Machinery Store, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar -- opposite party. The complainant also spent a sum of Rs. 8,922/- in purchasing the accessories and other items required for the installation of the pump. The pump was installed at his premises by the employee of the opposite party. It has been alleged that when he started the pump, it did not work. He requested the opposite party either to repair it or replace it, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to his request. Even after sending a registered notice dated 05.07.2007 to the opposite party through his counsel, the opposite party did not take any action. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 17.05.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent -- complainant on the date of hearing of the appeal. However, written arguments dated 02.08.2010 have been submitted by the complainant and the learned counsel for the appellant has received the copy of the same.
-
Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint because the submersible pump in dispute was purchased by the complainant from the appellant''s shop at...
To continue reading
Request your trial