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. Schindler India Private Limited vs Sri.Jameel Ahmed on 6 October, 2023

  	 Cause Title/Judgement-Entry 	    	       KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.             Revision Petition No. RP/42/2023  ( Date of Filing : 09 Aug 2023 )  (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/06/2023 in Case No. CC/238/2022 of District Bangalore 3rd Additional)             1. M/S. SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED   HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 
SCHINDLER HOUSE,
MAIN STREET, HIRANANDANI GARDENS,
POWAI, MUMBAI -400076

  MUMBAI  MAHARASHTRA  2. M/S. SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED   AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT 
785, 3RD FLOOR, AXIS SAI JYOTHI, 
15TH CROSS ROAD, PHASE 1,
SARAKKI EXTENSION,
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560078  BENGALURU URBAN  KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s)   Versus      1. SRI.JAMEEL AHMED  AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, SON OF MR.BASHEER AHMED, 
PROPRIETOR OF SANTOSH ELECTRICALS,
OFFICE CUM RESIDENCE
  BENGALURU URBAN  KARNATAKA  2. SRI.GHOUSE AHMED  AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, SON OF MR.BASHEER AHMED
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.4,
NEW NO.19, 4TH CROSS
WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU-5600 27  BENGALURU URBAN  KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER    HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER            PRESENT:      Dated : 06 Oct 2023    	     Final Order / Judgement    

 06.10.2023

 

 ORDER ON ADMISSION

 

 MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER
 

The Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party has preferred this petition being aggrieved by the Order dt.15.06.2022 passed in CC.No.238/2022 on the file of 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission to meet the ends of justice.

2.         The petitioner submits that on 27.03.2023, the petitioner filed an application u/s 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act praying to direct the respondents to allow them to take INEX tool box for installation of the lift in the premises of the respondents, but, the respondents refused to allow the petitioner to take the tool box.  Against this application the respondents filed an objection and the District Commission directed both parties to file memo with regard to the amount paid and received towards the installation of the elevator.  On 05.05.2023, as per statement of account filed by both parties, the respondents were in default of payment of Rs.1,27,000/- towards the final payment as per the contract.  On 08.05.2023, the District Commission directed for an inspection with regard to the condition and functioning of the lift and directed to suggest the name of the technician for which the petitioner filed a memo suggesting the name of the technician.  The respondents also accept the same.  Later the respondents filed a memo of instruction with a detailed list of alleged defects, to be ascertained in the inspection. The petitioner files objects the same along with a memo seeking to confine the inspection to determine the condition of the lift whether it is working or not.  The District Commission after hearing both parties rejected the objections filed by the petitioner.  Hence, this Revision Petition.

3.         Heard the arguments of Revision Petitioner on admission.

4.         On perusal of the certified copy of the Order passed by the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that there are some defects in the functioning of the elevator for which the petitioner has also suggested the name of the technician to inspect the elevator.  At the same time, memo of instructions from both parties are duly signed for the purpose of inspection, accordingly, the respondent filed memo of instructions.  We are of the opinion that it is necessary to find out the defects alleged by the respondent/complainant in the elevator, hence, the appointment of Court Commissioner and to file memo of instruction by both parties are just and proper.  The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law.  No interference is required.  Hence, the following;

ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed.

 
              Sd/-                                               Sd/-

 

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                         (Ravishankar)       

 

Member                                  Judicial Member

 

 

 

KCS*             [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]  PRESIDING MEMBER 
        [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]  MEMBER