Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Jan-20-2014
..... case the defects developed within the period of warranty. 21. the decisions have no application to the facts of the case in view of amendment to the consumer protection act by act no.62 of 2002 which was brought into force with effect from 15.03.2003 and in the light of the decision of the honble supreme court in birla ..... , ansari road, darya ganj, new delhi.? 8. by this admission, the complaint will fall within the exception clause contained in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the consumer protection act, as amended in 2002. in terms of this provision, the rp/complainant does not qualify to be a consumer for the purposes of the consumer protection ..... act, 1986. therefore, in our view, the state consumer disputes redressal commission uttrakhand has rightly rejected the consumer complaint filed by the revision petitioner. 16. in birla technologies ltd vs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : Feb-12-2014
..... the broad definition service adumbrated in sec.2(1) (o) of the consumer protection act. ultimately, to provide an additional speedy remedy, the parliament enacted rbi ( amendment) act, 1997 inserting sec.45-qa giving power to clb constituted under sec.10-e of the companies act which may, either on its own motion or on application of the depositors order nbfcs ..... action is, that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money. section 72 of the indian contract act runs as follows : a person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. there must be ..... the code of civil procedure,1973) and every proceeding before the bench shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the indian penal code and for the purpose of section 196 of that code.(5) without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (4-c) and (4-d), the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on : May-15-2014
..... the matter does not come even under the explanation which was introduced on the same day i.e. on 15.3.2003 by way of the amendment by the same amendment act, as it is nobody's case that the goods bought and used by the respondent herein and the services availed by the respondent were exclusively for the ..... complaint. the appellants contended that they disputed ex. a5 and a-6 and the district forum erred in holding that the respondents booked three german made machines and three indian made machines, in absence of any documents thereof. 13. the learned counsel for the respondents has filed written arguments. 14. the points for consideration are (i) ..... appellants opened a stall in the exhibition organized at chennai. on 20.04.2011,the first respondent and one pradeep made enquiry with the appellants about the machines, indian made automatic side cutting cable chain machines. 7. the respondents booked three machines in the name of three persons and issued cheque for rs.40,000/- towards advance .....
Tag this Judgment!