Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S. Anl Parcel Services. vs M/S. Poonam Creations, on 21 February, 2022

                                   1
                                                    APPEAL No.58/2016

                                            Date of Filing :18.01.2016
                                          Date of Disposal :21.02.2022

      BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
     REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
                    DATED: 21st February 2022
                             PRESENT

         Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.58/2016 M/s. ANL Parcel Services.

By its General Manager No.5-9-30/1/5/B Road, No.4, Bashirbag Palace Colony, Hyderbad-560063 (By Mr N.Naresh, Advocate) Appellant

-Versus-

M/s. Poonam Creations, By its Proprietor, Sri. Aravind Jain, S/o. Shanthilal Jain, D No.72, W.No.8, Kambli Bazar, Brucepet, Bellary-583101 Respondent

-:ORDER:-

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by OPs aggrieved by the Order dated 18.12.2015 passed in Consumer Complaint No.67/2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary (for short, the District Forum).
2. None appears for the parties to the Appeal in particular Appellant.
1 2 APPEAL No.58/2016
3. We examined the impugned order passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.67/2015 and Appeal Memo.
4. If we have gone through the impugned order, in particular Paragraph 21 of the impugned order could see, referring of the case in between Thompson Vs London, Midland and Scottish Rail Co.

reported in (1929) ALL E.R Rep. 474, wherein it was held that, if the condition had been so unreasonable that nobody could contemplate that it existed, it would not have been binding, thereby non payment of Rs.62,535/- and held complainant is entitled to recover Rs.62,535/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 05.01.2013 till realisation, Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Further held that OPs 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay such compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the Order.

In the above such circumstances we hold impugned order does not call for any interference of this Commission, but fact remains awarding of interest at the rate of 12% per annum is on higher side and we inclined to reduce it to 6% per annum and Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and with such modification proceed to dispose of the Appeal in the following term:

The OPs 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.62,535/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 05.01.2013 till realisation and do pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.
5. Amount in Deposit is directed to be transfer to the District Commission for the needful.
2 3 APPEAL No.58/2016
6. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties.
              Lady Member           Judicial Member

*s




                                3