CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

JUGAL KISHORE KHOSLA vs NARINDER @ KUTU SHAH

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 10 January 1995 · Citation: 1995 2 CPC 336 : 1995 2 CPJ 9

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.M.Mir , Begam Khursheed Bakshi , KrRameshwar Singh J.
RESULT
Allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 370 words
1.

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the Divisional Forum Jammu dated 9.2.1992 whereunder the Divisional Forum has dismissed the complaint. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant herein allegedly purchased a juicer from the respondent on 24.10.1992. The receipt and the guarantee card were issued to him but the Juicer bursted soon after its purchase and therefore he demanded return of price of the Juicer as well as compensation for having been put to inconvenience. The learned Divisional Forum while rejecting the complaint appears to have been lead to this conclusion by obviously wrong mentioning of dates in the complaint and has dismissed the complaint on that ground alone. In. the order under appeal it has been observed, that the complainant had himself stated that he purchased Juicer on 27.10.1992. It is held that which the Juicer was sold on 27.10.1992 how it was possible for any one to say and believe that the same bursted three days before that date.

2.

WE have gone through the appeal and in our view the learned Divisional Forum has in a hasty manner disposed of the complaint. No statement whatsoever has been recorded either of the complainant or his witnesses or any one from the respondents side. May be the dates might have been wrongly mentioned and may be it was on 24.10.1992 that the Juicer was purchased and it burst on 27.10.1992 but the dates somehow got mixed up. This matter should have and could have been cleared by recording the statement of the complainant and his complaint should not have been. thrown out on this ground alone which was a clerical mistake. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the Divisional Forum Jammu shall obtain the clarification of tile error in the dates from the complainant and then proceed in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 9.2.1993 is, therefore, set aside and the appellant herein is directed to cause his appearance on 24.2.1994 in the Divisional Forum Jammu for further instructions from there. The Forum will also summon the respondents.

A copy of this order be sent to the Divisional Forum and also be given to the appellant free of charges. Case remanded back.