NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1733/2006

MR. SUBHASH KR. TREHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S VIVEK AUTOMOBILE LTD. AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. MAHESH SINGH

08 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20 Jul 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1733/2006
(Against the Order dated 17/04/2006 in Appeal No. 942/2005 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. MR. SUBHASH KR. TREHANR/O FLAT NO.14 SFS POCKET 1&2 SECTOR 3 DWARKA NEW DELHI 110045 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/S VIVEK AUTOMOBILE LTD. AND ORS.18/3 ARYA SAMAJ ROAD KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI 110005 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. MAHESH SINGH
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 08 Oct 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

            Petitioner/complainant booked a FIAT car with the respondent company and deposited a sum of Rs.21,000/-.  He was allotted Client Control No.122842 dated 24.4.1996.  Petitioner got the booking cancelled in the year 1996.  Petitioner asked for refund of the booking amount, which was declined.  This led to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum.

            District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

            Respondent accepted the order passed by the District Forum and did not file the appeal before the State Commission.  Complainant/petitioner filed an appeal before the District Forum with a limited grievance regarding non-grant of interest by the District Forum.  State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing that in view of the fact that compensation had been awarded, petitioner was not entitled to get interest in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

            We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Since the petitioner has been adequately compensated, the petitioner was not entitled to get the interest.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER