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 1]

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Seema Rani vs Improvement Trust Sangrur on 9 September, 2015

          NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 2229 OF 2015     (Against the Order dated 21/07/2015 in Appeal No. 1150/2014    of the State Commission Punjab)        1. SEEMA RANI  WIFE OF BIRBAL DASS, C/O PETANJLI CHIKTSALAYA, GEETA BHAWAN ROAD, SUNAM, TEHSIL SUNAM,  SANGRUR  PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s)  Versus        1. IMPROVEMENT TRUST SANGRUR  THROUGH ITS EXCUTIVE OFFICER SUNAM ROAD, SANGRUR  SANGRUR  PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) 

BEFORE:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER   HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. KARAN DEWAN & MS. AANCHAL JAIN For the Respondent :

Dated : 09 Sep 2015 ORDER This revision is directed against the interim order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "State Commission") dated 21.7.2015 whereby the State Commission without deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner referred the matter to the President of the State Commission for constituting a larger Bench.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission while passing the impugned order failed to properly appreciated the judgment of an additional Bench No.2 in an earlier similar matter. We do not find merit in this contention.  The impugned order has not decided the rights of the parties and the relevant Bench has only requested the President to constitute a larger Bench. As per Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is the prerogative of the President to consider the request of two Members' Bench and decide whether or not there is any occasion for constituting a larger Bench to decide the issue.  Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

  ......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER