Amrik Singh Vs. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Ltd.

Amrik Singh vs Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Nov 09, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1114135

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1114135
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge: A.P. Chowdhri, President; the Honourable Ms. Justice S. Brar Member &Amp; Desh Bandhu, Member
Decided On: Nov 09, 1995
Case Number: Case No. A-504 of 1995
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Comparative Citations: 1996 (2) CPC 365, 1996 (1) CPJ 373

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amrik Singh

Respondent

Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Ltd.

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citations: 1996 (2) cpc 365, 1996 (1) cpj 373a.p. chowdhri, j: 1. mr. amrik singh gave an advertisement to the indian express newspaper for letting out his house at chandigarh. the advertisement was required to be published in the issue of the newspaper dated 30.1.93 in the âto letâ classified column. he had paid the necessary charges for the advertisement. instead of the advertisement appearing on 30.1.93, it actually appeared on 31.1.93. the case of the complainant was that he travelled to chandigaih in order to let out the house in response to the advertisement given by him. as the advertisement failed to appear on saturday, 30.1.93, he could not let out the house. he claimed rs. 560/- on account of railway fare to and from chadigarh, another rs. 1,700/- on account of loss of one months rent and rs. 1,550/- on account of compensation and expenses. the complaint was contested. 2. by order dated 12.9.95 the d.f. pointed out that there was delay in publishing the advertisement by a day. it was observed that there was no certainty that if the advertisement had really appeared on 30.1.93, the complainant would have certainly found a tenant of his choice. the grievance was, therefore, found to be of a technical nature and it was directed that the op was liable to refund rs. 60/- paid as publishing charges and a nominal compensation of rs. 200/-. dissatified with the order the complainant has preferred this appeal. 3. after going through the order recorded by d.f.-ii and hearing the appellant we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the district forum. no case for interference has been made out. the appeal is dismissed in limine. the appellant as well as d.f.-ii be sent a copy of this order. appeal dismissed in iimine.

Full Judgment

A.P. Chowdhri, J:

1. Mr. Amrik Singh gave an advertisement to the Indian Express Newspaper for letting out his house at Chandigarh. The advertisement was required to be published in the issue of the newspaper dated 30.1.93 in the âto letâ classified column. He had paid the necessary charges for the advertisement. Instead of the advertisement appearing on 30.1.93, it actually appeared on 31.1.93. The case of the complainant was that he travelled to Chandigaih in order to let out the house in response to the advertisement given by him. As the advertisement failed to appear on Saturday, 30.1.93, he could not let out the house. He claimed Rs. 560/- on account of railway fare to and from Chadigarh, another Rs. 1,700/- on account of loss of one months rent and Rs. 1,550/- on account of compensation and expenses. The complaint was contested.

2. By order dated 12.9.95 the D.F. pointed out that there was delay in publishing the advertisement by a day. It was observed that there was no certainty that if the advertisement had really appeared on 30.1.93, the complainant would have certainly found a tenant of his choice. The grievance was, therefore, found to be of a technical nature and it was directed that the OP was liable to refund Rs. 60/- paid as publishing charges and a nominal compensation of Rs. 200/-. Dissatified with the order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

3. After going through the order recorded by D.F.-II and hearing the appellant we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the District Forum. No case for interference has been made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine. The appellant as well as D.F.-II be sent a copy of this order.

Appeal dismissed in Iimine.

Same Court & Year Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New ... Same Parties Amrik Singh vs Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A.P. Chowdhri, President; the Honourable Ms. Justice S. Brar ...

Land Acquisition