Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016
It is found that the judgment of Ambrish Kumar Shukla
(supra) is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases
// 17 //
where refund has been requested. Obviously, there is difference in the
cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods
or availment of services and where one party is only seeking the
refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the
agreement. In the cases of refund the value of goods or services has to
be the value of the amount paid as the component of "amount
promised" would be absent. In the present case, amount deposited is
Rs. 25,10,502/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been
demanded. Thus, the total fugure does not cross the limit of Rupees
One Crore, which is necessary for this Commission to exercise its
jurisdiction. Even the addition of demanded interest shall not make the
total value more than Rs. One Crore. In these circumstances , this
Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the instant
complaint case."
Section 11 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
1