Tribunals and Commissions(1990) 03 NCDRC CK 0006

P.V. NARSIMHA RAO vs SOUTHERN AGENCIES

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 15 March 1990 · Citation: 1991 0 CPC 631 : 1991 1 CPR 498 : 1992 2 CPJ 442

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.Balakrishna Eradi , A.S.Vijayakar , Y.Krishan , Rais Ahmed J.
RESULT
Revision petition dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 320 words
1.

THE petitioner is conducting a cool drinks shop at Rajahmundry in Andhra Pradesh. For the purpose of the said business, he purchased a Godrej Refrigerator of 165 Its., capacity from the Respondent on 14.12.1988 paying a price of Rs. 6,200/-. Subsequently, it is stated that the said refrigerator was found to be defective and that it is not a new one but a second-hand machine.

2.

AFTER having failed to obtain any favourable response from the respondent to whom he had represented that the refrigerator was not working properly, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, Rajahmundry claiming a total compensation of Rs. 24,471.65p. The District Forum, after going into the merits of the case passed an order directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/to the Petitioner being the aggregate of Rs. 6,500/- ordered to be paid towards the cost of the refrigerator, Rs. 1,000/- by way of damages and Rs. 500/- towards costs.

Not being satisfied with the decision rendered by the District Forum in his favour, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh. The State Commission by its Order dated 25.11.1989 modified the order of the District Forum to the extent of enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,500/- instead of Rs. 1,000/-, thereby awarding to the Petitioner Rs. 9,500/-. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 9.500/- includes Rs. 250/- directed to be paid to the Petitioner by the respondent byway of costs of the appeal. Dissatisfied with the said decision of the State Commission, the Petitioner had come before us with the Revision Petition. Having given the matter our careful consideration, we are unable to find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and hence there is no scope for interference by us in the exercise of our revisional power. The Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.