AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE petitioner has come in revision against concurrent findings of two Fora below. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
THE complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. The complainant''s wife had taken special package of Rs. 51,000 in connection with the matrimonial proposals for her daughter. The OP had sent as many as 17 proposals within 23 days. Instead of contacting them through OP, the complainant''s wife approached them directly rather than through the OP as contemplated in the terms of agreement. The District Forum found that it was not the OP who had declined or refused to offer services, but it was the wife of the complainant who had terminated the contract. The District Forum was also of the view that the complainant''s wife has availed of the services of OP to the extent of the amount paid in advance. Finding that there was no deficiency in service, the complaint was dismissed. This order was challenged by the complainant before the State Commission.
THE State Commission recorded details of services to be rendered by the OP under the package and found the services were provided by dedicated Client Servicing Team. The State Commission also found that the present petitioner had paid Rs. 21,000 in part performance of the contract and after OP had sent 17 proposals within 23 days to the petitioner, the petitioner contacted some of the proposals directly and terminated the contract and asked for refund of Rs. 21,000. The State Commission found that the petitioner had broken the contract and there was no justification to demand back Rs. 21,000 by terminating the contract midway rather than in proceeding further with the help of the OP.
IN the light of the findings of the two Fora below, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.