Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
U.P., Lucknow
Appellate Jurisdiction
Appeal No……………….. of 2001
ADVERTISEMENTS:
M/s. …………….. through Proprietor Appellant
Versus
Sri ……………… Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This memorandum of appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 13.7.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Allahabad in Complaint No. 1339 of 1999 is presented on the following amongst other grounds :
1. That the order appealed against was served on the appellant on 18.9.1999 so it is within time.
2. That the order has been passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Allahabad in complaint wherein the value of the goods involved is Rs. 1,600.00 and so this Hon’ble Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the appellant.
3. That the respondent purchased Maida worth Rs. 1600.00 from the appellants for which a cash memo No. 637 dated 1.12.1997 was issued to him. On 31.12.1998 the respondent complained regarding poor quality of the Maida and wanted the same returned and claimed refund of the price money paid by him. The Maida was inspected by the appellant along with two other local residents and after it’s examination it was found that the respondent had stored the same on the ground which was full of moisture. Moreover it was specifically told by the appellants that the Maida should be consumed within 15 days of the date of purchase. The quality of the Maida was perfectly good when it was sold and the respondent was satisfied about the quality after inspecting the sample of the Maida taken out from the bag.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
4. That the two local residents Amarendra Singh s/o Surendra Singh and Radha Raman s/o Mahesh Narain have certified that the Maida was stored on the ground which was containing moisture. The certificates of the said persons have been filed before the District Forum and is part of the record. An affidavit filed by the appellant goes to confirm this fact.
5. That the Hon’ble District Forum has not considered this issue and has not recorded any finding on this aspect of the matter.
6. That the appellants requested the District Forum to examine the two local residents named in para 4 hereof which has not been done.
7. That the order of the Hon’ble District Forum is against the facts of the case and also against the law.
8. That the order is against the principles of natural justice.
9. That in any view of the matter the order of the Hon’ble District forum is not sustainable in law.
10. That the respondent did not consume the Maida within 15 days of the date of the purchase and therefore he himself was responsible for the deterioration in quality thereof.
11. That the respondent has not placed entire material before the Hon’ble District Forum whereas the latter has not considered all the material brought before it by the appellant.
Prayer
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the appeal be kindly allowed and the order of the District Forum dated 13.7.1999 be kindly set aside.
Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the appellant’s case be also granted.
Signature of the Appellant
Verification
I, Krishna Kumar the appellant do hereby verify that the contents of this memorandum of appeal are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Verified today dated 3.10.1999 at Lucknow.
Dated 3.10.1999
Place Lucknow
Image Source: chdconsumercourt.gov.in
Signature of the Appellant